A yearlong Washington Post study, in 2015, found that as early as May of that year, blacks were killed by police “at three times the rate of whites or other minorities when adjusting by the population of the census tracts where the shootings occurred.” In spite of this growing national awareness, a recent American Values survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute shows more than 70 percent of white Christians believe that police killings of African-American men are isolated incidents. Since there is no reliable federal database on the excessive use of force, only anecdotal evidence for each case exists. Such cases like Hilton Vega and Anthony Rosario, suspected of nothing, shot in the back fourteen times while handcuffed and on the ground in 1995. Or like A. Anderson, who was shot while handcuffed on the ground in 1996.The startling list of such cases can go on and on.
​
In spite of this evidence, why are so many white Americans not persuaded by the surging reports and uploaded videos of police killings? Perhaps the answer may be related to another social phenomenon. Although African Americans make up only 12 ½ percent of the population of the United States, they account for 37 percent of prison inmates sentenced to more than one year. Although whites and blacks use illegal drugs at relatively the same rate, the US judicial system imprisons black men nine times more frequently than it does whites. Over 30 percent of the nation’s African American males between the ages of twenty and twenty-nine are under criminal justice supervision according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
What does this say about American society? And how can so many disturbing facts go unnoticed by the general public? What American society needs to understand is that these phenomena are part of a historical trend and institutionalized prejudice that is well understood within psychological and socioeconomic arenas.

I. Psychological Factors: An Unseen Reality

In the 1960s, Lestor Luborsky conducted an experiment that tracked eye movements of people viewing photographs. He discovered that if a photo contained images that people found morally objectionable or threatened their world view, their eyes would not even stray once to those images. Since their eyes never saw the images, how did they know not to look there? In reference to this study, social researcher Derrick Jensen commented in his book The Culture of Make Believe, “our decisions to not see (are) made entirely on the pre- or unconscious level.” He later concluded that the reason why so many people fail to understand or recognize racism is “in nearly all circumstances we each know precisely where not to look in order to have our worldview remain unthreatened and intact….So long as vision remains constricted, hatred can often remain invisible.” In society, there are those who do not see but can, and then there are those who cannot see because of institutionalized and learned systems of prejudice.

Understanding Direct and Indirect Racism

In 1918 an eight-month-pregnant woman named Mary Turner was lynched (murdered by an angry mob of whites) in Valdosta, Georgia. Ordinary citizens left their homes in a rage to give her the justice they felt she deserved. Her crime? She told a news reporter that her husband had been wrongly accused (not by authorities but by the lynch mob) and murdered by whites and that he deserved to be “avenged.” This was enough to make her their next target. She was later hanged upside down from a tree. They doused her clothes with gasoline and burned them off of her. Then used a hog-splitting knife to open her belly. Her infant fell to the ground, and cried briefly, until someone crushed its head with his heel. The mob then shot her hundreds of times.
Thousands of black men and women were lynched in the United States in the first twenty years of the twentieth century alone. It is interesting to note that in the aftermath of lynchings like the one that killed Mary, her husband, and their unborn, hundreds of black people quietly and quickly evacuated their fine farmland leaving it ripe for new white tenants, including those who never held a knife, gun, or rope. This is just one of many prime examples of how the social structure became racially stratified through violence and how white families indirectly benefited over the years. As documented as it is, society often forgets how easy it was to create genocide and reap the benefits of stolen land, labor, or wealth from blacks, Indians, and other minorities. Much of this social stratification still lingers and its complete correction has yet to see fruition. More importantly, to understand the social conditions that lead to such atrocities, one must not look away from the larger picture.

Origins of White Supremacy: What came first? 
  
Racial hatred is not historically unique to the United States nor exclusively perpetrated by white Caucasians. Many empires have enslaved rival groups and whomever else found themselves on the wrong end of a sword (or legal system). From an anthropological point of view, ethnocentrism likely predates racial hatred and could possibly be responsible for early racial inequality in early antiquity. As the demand for labor developed in feudal societies, slave classes became part of the social structures and often consisted of ethnic and cultural outsiders. Aristotle once wrote, “Humanity is divided into two: the masters and the slaves; or, if one prefers it, the Greeks and the barbarians, those who have the right to command; and those who are born to obey.” Many cultures around the world had their own unique social symbols to identify and justify who the “obedient” class was. In India’s caste system, Untouchables have for thousands of years been identified by birth or caste certificates. Still today, many ‘Dalits’—as they are often referred—face lynchings, rapes, murder, and labor discrimination in Hindu society. Such social stratifications are meant to preserve the dominate group’s monopoly over land resources. When the Roma, or Gypsies started moving to Europe around 1000 AD, the Europeans responded to them as vermin and vile, brown creatures. Gypsy hunts in Europe foreshadowed Indian hunts that took place later in America and Aborigine hunts in Australia.

Ethnocentrism (or racial supremacy) goes hand in hand with whichever racial class happens to be dominate. However, it was only as recent as the 16th century that White European supremacy began to manifested itself on the global stage. It all comes down to power and whichever group holds the power creates the social structures that restrict control of capital and societal privilege. Since Europeans amassed much of the world’s capital in recent centuries through their exploration and expansion, white supremacy just happened to be (and still continues to be) the unconscious flavor of choice in the current social model.  

Criminology and Justifying Racial Violence

The historical development of racial hatred follows an almost unbroken pattern. First, as any criminal psychologist would agree, the perpetrators of any mass murder consider themselves the real victims. Secondly, in a sense they are the victims. For if one believes they are entitled to something that belongs to another (land, body, labor, etc) and that person resists appropriation or threatens the perceived entitlement, it is easy to understand how the racist killer could feel victimized. All hate begins with loss of privilege or fear of losing such rights, even if the alleged rights were based on exploitation and inequity. Thirdly, nearly all victims of genocide are first demonized through propaganda to stir up retribution for the loss of superiority. The result is Jews victimized Germans and were responsible for nearly everything wrong in the world. According to Nazi propaganda, Jews were alleged kidnappers of baby Aryans for sacrifice. Nazi propagandist, Julius Streicher wrote “You must realize the Jews want our people to perish.” Conspiracy theories credited “a Jewish plot” for the explosion of the zeppelin Hindenburg in Lakehurst, New Jersey. In the United States, Woodrow Wilson once blamed blacks for the violence against them stating “white men of the south” were “aroused by the very instinct of self-preservation to rid themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden sustained by the votes of ignorant negroes.” The mass genocide of Native Americans throughout the American West was, too, not without hysterical myths about their savagery. The scientific explosion surrounding the Darwinian notion of natural selection inevitably led to an explosion of scientific racism, which declared that nonwhites were genetically inferior and thus destined to be superseded by whites.

Motives Behind Racism

Motivations for atrocities often vary. Sometimes it is overreaction to a real or perceived injury. When whites were still settling California, Indians killed a white trapper for attempting to rape a Mattole women. The local white settlement became enraged. Captain Greer, commander of militia in charge of exterminating the Mattole, later said of the ensuing massacre, “We fought and killed quite a lot. There was no resistance; they simply hid as they always did.” Sometimes the atrocities are committed with a sense of contempt. Andrew Jackson called Indians “savage dogs,” and said attempts to eradicate them were futile until soldiers knew “where the Indian women were.” Sometimes the motivation is greed, as in a San Francisco Argonaut editorial on the US’s colonization of Philippines. “We don’t want the Filipinos. We want the Philippines. The islands are enormously rich, but unfortunately they are infested by Filipinos. There are many millions there and it is to be feared their extinction will be slow.” Sometimes the motivation is simply business as usual, as in the 1984 Bhopal, India disaster where Union Carbide’s efforts to cut costs in standard safety procedures resulted in an avoidable explosion that killed more than eight thousand people, or in the 1870 Northern Pacific Railroad construction that cost the lives of thousands of Chinese railroad workers and many more Native Americans who resisted the encroachment on their land by treaty. Sometimes the atrocities are committed out of a strong sense of benevolence—though underlying ethnocentrism—as in residential school systems for Native Americans and First Nations throughout North America. In the late 1860s, government-funded, church-run schools were established to ‘educate’ and ‘assimilate’ First Nations and Inuit children. In 1920, Canadian federal legislation required all First Nations children aged 7 to 15 to attend. Duncan Campbell Scott, who was deputy minister of Indian Affairs, explains the purpose of residential schools to the House of Commons in 1920, “I want to get rid of the Indian problem…Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed…” Aboriginal children were separated from their parents and brought to residential schools where they lived for many years. Thousands of students died at residential schools in the US and Canada. Disease, fires, accidents, abuse, and suicide were among the main causes. One survivor of the residential schools system reflected, “Today I understand quite a few words in my language. But every time I try and talk it, my tongue hurts…I ran into another woman who went to residential school with me…She asked me if I remembered how they would stick a needle in our tongue if we got caught talking our language… Maybe that’s why my tongue hurts whenever I try and talk my language.”
It is important to note that whenever minorities resist their exploitation, the white majority are always the alleged victims. For centuries, by right and title as a white man, one had a claim to a black man’s labor. Any black man’s labor. According to Derrick Jensen, “Hate becomes more perceptible when it is no longer normalized. ….When the rhetoric of superiority begins to fail, force and hatred wait in the wings, ready to explode.” What happens to whites that blaspheme against white supremacy? Ten thousand men, women, and children from Omaha broke Will Brown out of jail and hanged him because they believed (incorrectly) that he had assaulted a white child. When the white mayor of Omaha tried to stop them, he too was beaten to death.

II. Socioeconomic Factors: Was Hatred the Motivation For Black Slavery?

It is a little known fact that between 1609 and the early 1800s, as many as two-thirds of white colonists had been forced to come over to North America as slaves. Since white slavery was prevalent at roughly the same time as black, some historians such as Michael A. Hoffman use this to delegitimize black social injustices, as though the suffering of poor whites somehow negates or diminishes the suffering of members of other cultures and races. As Jensen confirms, “Showing that one group was made miserable in no way lessens the misery of any other. It can, however, point out the rationale for exploiting one or another group. A culture in the name of commerce, religion, history, or science has subjugated, exploited, and/or destroyed every other culture it has encountered. All who defend or look the other way are merely less direct in their racism.” When England claimed North America, King James I basically created a large estate by granting it to the Virginia Company of London. To profit from the land, the company’s shareholders found slaves to harvest cash crops. As true with black and Indian slaves, white slaves were regularly subjected to whippings, rape, torture, and murder. Conditions were so harsh that 80 percent of indentured servants died within their first year. The owners used fictitious debts or such petty crimes as stealing food, to maintain permanent control over the lives of their servants. Would-be indentured servants were acquired from taverns and fairs, while ship captains bribed judges and indebted prison jailers to secure prisoners who could be indentured. Prisoners were sold at auction for various terms and years. At the request of the Virginia Company, a bill passed in 1618 legalizing the capture of children eight years or older to be transported as slaves to America. Judges received up to 50 percent of the profits for the sale of children. It is estimated that tens of thousands of poor people throughout Great Britain were sold into slavery. Even after England abolished slavery in 1808, children were still the cheapest exploitable labor. Society virtually considered them expendable as many factories employed them to clean smoke chimneys, even hot flues. For many years, this was the common practice throughout Britain’s industrial age. If the reader is already drawing parallels to today’s for-profit prisons, hold that thought because the penal system is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of how much American society has inherited.

Looking back, did western society hate children? If the answer is “no,” would anyone be able to tell the difference in early industrialized society if the answer were “yes?” As Jensen explains, “More atrocities are committed in the name of economics than even in the name of hate.” In this context, it is obvious that the Portuguese pioneering the black African slave trade was not motivated by hatred. Perhaps it is a small wonder few today understand what racism truly is. Once again, society is looking away.

Black Slavery Unified White Society

In 1832, proslavery philosopher Thomas Roderick Dew saw black slavery as the common unifier for society. “We believe slavery, in the United States, has accomplished (unity), in regard to the whites…” He argued that slavery in the American South acted as a great equalizer among members of the white race. So long as racial differences could be emphasized, poor whites would forget the rich whites who exploited them as surely as they exploited blacks. The poor historically perceived others on the bottom of the social latter as the source of their misery, and the misperception continues to this day. According to Jensen, “The near ubiquity of this misperception is not the product of mass stupidity on the part of members of…the population who fall prey to it, nor is it part of a fiendishly clever plot by the rich to consistently keep the poor at each other’s throats instead of their own. It is a manifestation of the selective blindness that besets us all. We have been trained, from early on, to be able to perceive only certain threats, to perceive only certain forms of hatred, contempt, violence, and to perceive only certain sorts of people as even potential perpetrators of horrible crimes.” Still today popular culture is affected by the unquestioned assumptions that make education what it is, and that determine the words that are chosen. The social psyche manufactured via movies, books, newspapers, and television teaches that one kind of violence is violence, and another kind of violence is not. As a result, Clive Bundy and his armed militia who occupied federal lands in Oregon are not culturally labeled as terrorists, while a little brown boy in Texas who brings a clock to school does. It is no wonder that so often members of those groups that share common interests end up scapegoating each other, instead of looking together at the people and organizations exploiting them both.

How the Irish Became White

A million Irish men, women, and children died in the infamous potato famine between 1845 and 1850 due to their practical enslavement by Great Britain—their corpses lying in fields, with streets, according to a contemporary observer, “black with funeral processions.” The first poor Irish immigrants were hated and despised for competing in an already tight job market. Having a long history of resistance to British exploitation, the Irish seemed like natural allies to other exploited groups, notably the nonwhite working class. However, according to Noel Ignatiev’s book, How the Irish Became White, instead of attempting to bring down the system, the Irish in America decided to try to join the upper, or at least middle, classes. They made sure at the very least to disassociate with the most oppressed class. They cared little for political theory, abolitionism, revolution, or worker solidarity. With the lives of their children involved, they used every advantage at their disposal, including their white skin. According to Ignatiev, “Black workers, already being driven out of artisanal trades by prejudice, and squeezed out of service trades and common labor by competition, could find no refuge in the manufacturing area, and hence were pushed down below the waged proletariat, into the ranks of the destitute self-employed: rapickers, bootlacks, chimney sweeps, sawyers, fish and oyster mongers, washerwomen, and hucksters of various kinds.” As a convenient ‘divide and conquer’ scenario for the rich, nearly the only jobs open to blacks were those made available when whites went on strike, which enraged whites to attack them as strikebreakers. During strikes in 1852, 1855, 1862, and 1863—to continue the example of their white role models—Irish longshoremen fought black workers who were brought in to replace them. Oftentimes, blacks were sought out at their place of work, and terrorized away. For example a primarily Irish mob attacked and murdered the black employees of a tobacco factory in Brooklyn and burned down a black orphanage in the Five Points riots during the Civil War. As Ignatiev solemnly demonstrates, it did not take long for the Irish to become white.
 
South Africa’s Apartheid

Much like United States, South Africa also shares its origins of hate in economic power. The laws of apartheid were drafted and implemented at the request of large mining companies, such as DeBeers, to explicitly serve their interests. Mines could only be held by whites and were worked almost entirely by blacks. Since a free market in labor could have driven up wages, this led to the Pass Laws of apartheid. Constricting native movement after 8:00 pm, and mandating under threat of flogging, all native workers to carry signed passes to be shown anytime “to anyone who may demand it.” Once again, the laws were not passed from any overt hatred, but for reasons of economy. African workers began to be confined to company compounds for the extent of their employment. Given that most natives lived off the land, and thus did not need to sell their labor, the government passed poll, hut, and even dog, taxes to force them off the land and into the mines. Since the natives had not previously been part of a cash economy, they had to go into mines to earn money to pay taxes. The Masters and Servants Bill gave legal right to beat nonwhite employees. The death rate in the mines fell between 8 and 10 percent per year, translating to 8,000-10,000 killed in mines just in 1899. The rest is history. If it can be concluded that racial exploitation is then a product of natural succession of ethnocentrism used by upper classes and elites to consolidate and perpetuate their economic control and power, when does racism manifest into outright hatred and lynch mobs? 

III. Historical Factors: The KKK’s Origin and Social Influence  
         
The Klu Klux Klan sprang into being almost overnight after the South’s defeat in the American Civil War. It sent forth 100,000 members to try men without courts and inflicted penalties for their loss of privilege, sometimes capital ones. The Klan was so thoroughly organized and effective means of grassroots citizen vigilance that the commanding officer of federal troops in Texas reported, “Murders of Negroes are so common as to render it impossible to keep accurate accounts of them.” In the weeks foregoing the Presidential election of 1868, at least 2,000 people were killed or wounded by Klan violence in Louisiana alone. It is worth repeating the words of President Woodrow Wilson who later rationalized the killings: “The white men of the South were aroused by the very instinct of self-preservation to rid themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of government sustained by the votes of ignorant negroes.” The Klan continued their acts of terrorism. Church meetings and political gatherings of African Americans were broken up, guns were confiscated, followed by lynchings, rapes, torture, and castrations. Between 1868 and 1871, conservative figures estimate Klan murders at no less than twenty thousand. To simply blame the KKK would be to miss a deeper point. Though federal troops broke up the Klan by 1871, the social conditions that gave rise to such violence were left intact.

Manifestations In the US Legal System

Since most blacks were terrorized away from the voting booths, elected legislatures began passing laws that legitimized black disenfranchisement. Lawmakers in many states used voting tests (whereby, before blacks could vote, they had to answer such questions as, “How many windows in the White House?”), poll taxes, and property qualifications (having already passed laws barring blacks from owning land). In states such as Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida; roughly 95% of blacks were eliminated from voting rolls by 1890. The political aims of the KKK were eventually achieved legally. Today in some states, nearly 25 percent of African Americans do not have the right to vote due to drug related felonies that disproportionately prosecute them. Felony disenfranchisement accounts for 13 percent of African Americans nationally. As of 2010, about 25% of the total US adult black population had a felony, while 6.5% of adult non-blacks have a felony conviction. And when a black defendant and a white defendant are convicted of murders with similar aggravating circumstances, the black defendant is significantly more likely to get the death penalty.

Economic Downturn and Public Relations: The Unholy Alliance

The Klan was nearly bankrupt after WWI, and would have gone so, had its leader William Simmons not come into contact with one of the pioneers of the embryonic public relations industry, Edward Young Clarke. Clarke convinced Simmons to allow the Southern Publicity Association to be the Klan’s sole marketing agent, and, soon enough, turned it into the grandfather of all multilevel marketing plans, a pyramid scheme tapping a nearly unlimited reservoir of uncertainty, fear, bigotry, and hatred. He hired what he called ‘King Kleagles’ to oversee recruitment in each state. Recruitment was handled by ‘Kleagels,’ who went door to door selling memberships in the Klan for ten dollars each. The Kleagle kept four dollars from each recruit, and passed the other six to his King. The King kept a dollar, and so on, up the scale. In order to sell memberships, the Kleagles were told to appeal to the fears of targeted communities. Kleagles in communities where a lot of recent immigrants lived emphasized that the Klan “stood for 100 percent Americanism and would never allow the country to be taken over by a pack of radical hyphens.” The Klan no longer burgeoned, but exploded. In less than a year, eleven hundred Kleagles were soliciting across the country. Klan violence grew apace associated with elections, with robed Klan members intimidating blacks, Jews, Catholics, socialists, and others into not voting. People liked what they heard. They liked what the Klan represented. By 1923, at least seventy-five U.S. representatives owed their seats to the Klan. Warren G. Harding, was sworn in as a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the Green Room of the White House, using the White House Bible for the oath. Klan violence became so prolific that is was not prosecuted in cities like Atlanta where an attorney later stated, “Everybody in the courthouse belonged to the Klan, virtually every judge, the prosecuting officers….If anybody gets an indictment against a Klansman or the Klan itself…I am going to write out a pardon immediately.”

The KKK taps a vein in US culture, a vein of rage that waits always to explode. It is important to note that the framing conditions in the culture that not only make this rage inevitable, but make inevitable, too, the turning of this rage onto inappropriate targets. By 1924, 10 percent of Indiana’s residence were Klan members. David Curtis Stephenson declared, “ I did not sell the Klan in Indiana on hatreds—that is not my way. I sold the Klan on Americanism, on reform.” The Klan’s use of conspiracy theories and overt nationalism was quite successful. According to the Klan, Catholics were going to take over the state. “The sewer system beneath Notre Dame was filled with guns and explosives, ready for the coup. The pope himself was planning to move the Vatican to Indiana.” The KKK flourished when the end of World War I brought the soldiers home to find jobs that no longer existed when the wartime economy ceased, and folded with the end of the recession. Jensen points out that, “The fact that Germany’s post-World War I depression lasted much longer than that in the United States goes a long way toward explaining how the Klan—so much stronger than the National Socialists in the mid-1920s, and banging essentially the same drum—fizzled, while the Nazis did not. Shifts in economic conditions had more to do with the downfall of the Klan than any fundamental changes in the hate-inducing competition and exploitation on which capitalist culture is based.” If prisons are indeed a reflection of society, the racial component is very disturbing. In prisons, it is in the interest of guards and administrators for prisoners to be at odds with each other. As one guard told the Christian Science Monitor, “Inmates dramatically outnumber guards, so the prison has a vested interest in keeping the inmate population divided against itself rather than them.” In short, racism in America has and will change its manifestations to keep up with the times. Racial division just so happens to be a convenient mechanism of control.

Chinese Migrant Workers

Now that it has been demonstrated that racial hatred is a reactionary phenomenon to lost economic privilege based on exploitation, it is time to test the same formula in a different case study. In 1850, Chinese workers were welcomed, desired, even renowned, in great measure due to their reputation as being strong, highly competent, hard-working, and reticent. In other words, they formed the perfect labor force for owners of capital. Chinese men were crucial to the construction of the transcontinental railroads. What made Chinese labor exploitative is that their crews were paid less than white crews and under dangerous conditions. Whenever they attempted a strike for better safety conditions, their food supply would be cutoff. No one will ever know how many Chinese died building the Central Pacific, but by 1870 some twenty thousand pounds of bones had been gathered from shallow graves along the tracks and returned to their homeland. Many thousands more of the dead remain in unmarked graves throughout the West. The reward on completion of the line was unemployment for the living, and although there had been fair resentment toward the Chinese by white Americans before, it then turned to hatred. Tens of thousands of workers were suddenly competing for jobs in an already competitive market. The resentment became all the worse when they showed signs of success everywhere they went. Even when the Chinese did not take jobs from white Americans, they drove down wages and working conditions.

Next, the Chinese were demonized. Chinese women were viewed, as were black women, as a lustful threat to manhood, and Chinese men were viewed, as were black men, as threats to white women and children. “No matter how good a Chinaman may be,” wrote Sarah E. Henshaw in Scribner’s Monthly, “ladies never leave their children with them, especially little girls.” The great irony is that all of this demonization of Chinese as destroyers of white morals occurred well after whites—the British Empire—had used guns, warships, and economics to turn generations of Chinese nationals into opium addicts. Then finally, Chinese immigrants were lynched. They were hanged, burned alive, castrated, mutilated, and scalped. Their homes were burned. The homes of those who employed them were also burned. In once instance, twenty-eight Chinese men were massacred in Rock Springs, Wyoming, 1885. All were burned alive and mutilated.
 
Contemporary Racial Biases and White Privilege

Social theorists familiar with black sociology see the stifled black upward social mobility in lower-class ghettos as a result of transient family life, job ceilings, crime, and institutional racism. According to E. Franklin Frazier’s Black Bourgeoisie (1957) the new black middle class signaled its arrival on the American scene in 1900. Members of Negro ‘high society’ “boasted of mulatto forebears and snobbishly considered a light complexion and family background based on white ancestry better than the darker skinned black proletariat.” Frazier argued that the social psychology of the black bourgeoisie, especially during the pre-civil rights era of the 1940s and 1950s, was based on fear of losing status. As a result, many maintained expensive homes and cars beyond their means. Frazier criticized Negro business as a “social myth” divorced from the realities of the black bourgeois jobs as white-collar workers. Despite occasional success stories and the support of the Negro press, black achievement in business was relatively insignificant. “The black bourgeoisie clung to its delusion of wealth and power to escape frustrations as a social class.” Malcom X’s Autobiography recalled how his father favored him over his brothers due to his lighter complexion, and further cited how he and his friends used to conk their hair to look white, and black women wore platinum-blonde wigs as part of their social outings. In the climate of Social Darwinism’s theoretical influences in sociology. W.E.B. Du Bois’s The Philadelphia Negro, was critical of the black social patterns such as crime and prostitution, which he criticized the genetic approach to social theory and blamed the social problems of the African-American community on the environment and the moral depredation of slavery, not innate racial inferiority.

Not only does racial stratification exist in America today, it has seen further worldwide expansion through US globalization. Instead of bringing foreign workers into the factory, factories have simply moved to the foreign workers, sometimes sustained by the infamous sweatshops and child labor there. In some cases, if the foreign workers strike, so will death squads led by whomever multinationals keep in power in that region. Outsourcing also has the added benefit for when the companies are criminally negligent in whatever deaths may occur—like in Bhopal—that the management will not be tried in the US. As Jensen points out, “Hatred felt long enough and deeply enough no longer feels like hatred. It feels like economics, or religion, or tradition, or simply the way things are.” A connection can be drawn here with the lack of prosecutions for US war atrocities as well.
Furthermore, white supremacy still exists in the current social psyche, and it too is a global phenomenon promoted by non-white and white societies alike. It has reached every culture and continues to distort racial self-images and self worth. From North America and Europe to Africa and the Far East, white skin and Caucasian features are favored above all other skin tones in the business and marketing world. In Korea, people there commonly get plastic surgery to narrow the bones in their face to look more Caucasian. Black celebrity models often whiten their skin, as it proves beneficial for their careers. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, two identical résumés were sent out for job applications. The only differences in the two were the names: Greg and Jamal. Résumés with the most black-sounding names received the 50 percent fewer callbacks while having the same qualifications. According to an FBI hate crime statistic, in 2012; 293,800 “bias-motivated criminal incidents” were reported by forty-six states and the District of Columbia. Of these, 46 percent were motivated by racial bias. White supremacy is so ingrained into mainstream culture that most are unaware of the very social symbols they attach to class.

Television

Derrick Jensen refers to television as “cultural genocide. It is the great homogenizer.” The purpose of the commercial media has always been to sell fear because it breeds insecurity, and then consumer culture offers any number of ways to buy a way back to feeling secure, however momentarily. People are fed these images of what everyone is supposed to look like: sulky lips, perky breasts, buns of steel, everlasting youth; even white. It is not possible to internalize again and again these images of what is beauty and what is desirable without having that affect one’s self-perception. [serving as legal provocation for the Civil Rights Movement) It modifies the very basics of personality and distorts sexuality. In her book, Ancient Futures: Learning From Ladakh, Helena Norberg-Hodge studied the impact television had on indigenous cultures. In the Ladakh, part of the trans-Himalayan region of Kashmir, the arrival of television changed their value systems because idealized stars make people feel inferior and passive. The effects of television on indigenous communities are both immediate and insidious. In the 1980s, television was introduced into Dene and Inuit villages in the far north of Canada. Jerry Mander interviewed members of these communities. “People weren’t visiting each other anymore” a Dene woman said. “It was hard to get the kids to do anything. The women weren’t sewing anymore, either, and the woodpiles were too low.” Another said, “The social relationships of the people and the language and learning of the kids changed overnight. What they started learning best was all the stuff that’s in those commercials from white society.” Television and movies project power structure of western society, and by projecting it, perpetuate it to make it seem normal. Once viewers have become familiarized to a certain type of story, they become indoctrinated with stereotypes. Jensen concludes, “Television serves the interests of those in power by distorting our psyches and diminishing communities. Advertising makes us hate ourselves.”

Why Our Political System Fails To Resolve Racism

Tyler Fischer did a master’s thesis on Richard Nixon’s politicization of television during the revolutionary year of 1968 and measured its influence as a precedent in modern political campaigning. Nixon’s cult of personality in the television age to mediate and mobilize polarized demographics in society is defined as “Nixonland.” Nixon achieved his political success by subtle exploitation of Confederate nationalism. As Fischer writes, “Nixonland was established in 1968 through the polarized and demagogic presidential campaigning of Richard Nixon, symbolizing the premature end to America’s process of racial reconciliation.” Nixonland’s law and order motif, which derived from a conservative status quo, was implicitly accepted as more valuable than civil rights. It can be argued that Nixon’s style survives in current political campaign rhetoric of both parties. Fischer argues that Nixonland was “premised upon an artificial solution to society’s civil unrest because it was not a social solution to the conflict but rather a politicized solution that was framed to attract the electoral support of a simple majority.” Nixon deflected the central issue of racial tension by redirecting the debate from the social level to the legal and federal level of “states rights” reflected in his southern strategy. Fischer also credits the birth of the television era and its influence: “Television fills in the holes of our fragmented reality. For most people, television is their picture of reality.” Fischer concludes “It appears the politicization of history within the visible dialectic of the ‘culture wars’ of the 1960s constrains modern American political discourse based on the public debate over the opposing perceptions of the event rather than the factual content or substantive character of the event.” Denial by social conservatives of Nixon’s politicization of the white backlash from the 1960s continues to be a force within the Republican party in spite of the 2013 “autopsy report” that recommends the party needs to appeal to more minorities if it ever expects to win nationally in the future.

Conclusion

The social conditions for America’s racial inequality can be explained by psychological, historical, and socioeconomic factors. Racism as a social phenomenon did not originate from hate, but is rather just one of the many social side effects of Capitalism. The first slave traders didn’t HATE Africans. The incentive of slavery was economic. Once ‘black’ slavery was institutionalized to “unify the white race,” violence against blacks was viewed in terms of preserving the social order. Genocide and atrocities were not committed out of overt hatred until white privilege was threatened with competition within the labor force. Racism in American culture was further exacerbated with the birth of Edward Young Clarke’s PR campaign, which combined fear and nationalism to market the Ku Klux Klan as a traditionally American fraternity. These in turn influenced political institutions to further suppress black participation in the political process. Due to Nixon’s deflection of racial issues and premature conclusion to civil unrest, politicians today continue to demagogue racism in America. Although the United States no longer has many lynchings, even in cases where a black man murders a white man, mobs allow the state to do the imprisoning or executing. The current penal system imprisons and disenfranchises minorities by legal means what the KKK strived to achieve. As black social mobility continues to be hindered by white privilege and the war on drugs, the very economic structure responsible for its social conditioning continues to create atrocities abroad in nonwhite countries. In the 1980s U.S. backed troops in Guatemala killed ten thousand people per year and systematically dispossessed one million of the nation’s four million Indians. The U.S.-backed Shah in Iran killed thirty thousand people. US backed commandoes assassinated union leaders in Columbia. Between five hundred thousand and a million people were murdered at CIA urging and with CIA assistance just in Indonesia during the late 1960s because the Indonesians did not vote the way the CIA wanted them to. Similar stories can be told in the Congo, Guatemala, Iraq, Chile, etc.

One cannot expect different results today from the very institutionalized socioeconomic structure that engendered slavery. Today, multinationals are responsible for the enslavement of countless millions around the world. According to Kevin Bales’ Disposable People, more people are in slavery today than in any time in human history. Everyone in the industrialized world probably has slave products at home. These same corporations are also responsible for the 1400 toxic chemical accidents per year in the United States alone due to criminal negligence —all in their efforts to minimize costs and maximize profits. As Jensen points out,

       “Rarely do we see explorations of the systemic use of police and prisons to maintain current social order. If            prisons were really about public safety, those responsible for the three hundred thousand preventable cancer            deaths per year would be behind bars. And if prisons were about protecting property, those who looted the              Savings & Loans would be serving terms proportionate with the amount they cost the public. It is entirely              possible that we have the wrong population in solitary.”

Instead of demagoging prejudices or deflecting the issue of race inequality, politicians should tackle the socioeconomic conditions that create racism. Law makers might consider eliminating some of the causes of crime: the gap between rich and poor, child abuse, and an oppressive working class reality that needs to be neutralized through the use of drugs.
​
This analysis does not suggest that nonwhites do not hate, nor that they do not commit atrocities. To do so would be hypocritical. By and large black culture does not wield the same sort of power as does white culture, making on a social scale white hatred far more dangerous. Therefore, racial hatred is often the result of a perceived threat to white privilege. Since white privilege is imbedded in American culture, most racists are unaware of their own racism. Until the social conditions of racism are commonly understood and engaged, it is unlikely that a majority of social conservatives will be persuaded to support any meaningful social action. The facts may continue to be that part of the photograph so many happen to subconsciously stray their eyes away from.

References
Armstrong, J., Collishaw, R., Piper, J., and Ruypers, J. (2014). History Uncovered: Canadian History Since World War I. ON, Canada: Nelson Education Ltd.

​Bales, K. (1999). Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

“Background On Black Lives Matter.” Harvard News. November 13, 2015 http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/11/background-on-black-lives-matter/

Bertrand, M. & Mullainathan, S. (2003). “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” American Economic Review. 2004, v94(4,Sep), 991-1013

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2014). Correctional Populations in the United States, 2013, September 2014, NCJ 247282 http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf site visited January 29, 2016

Chomsky, N. (1989). Necessary Illusions: Thought Control In Democratic Societies. ON, Canada: CBC Massey Lectures.

Collins, R. & Makowsky, M. (2005). The Discovery of Society, Seventh Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

De Kiewiet, C. W. (1941). A History of South Africa: Social and Economic. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

Du Bois, W. E. B. (1899) The Philadelphia Negro. New York: Cosimo Classics.

Frazier, E. F. (1957). The Black Bourgeoisie. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Fischer, T. J. (2009) Nixonland Revisited: A History Of Populist Communication. (Master’s Thesis) University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Hoffman, M. A., II. (1991). They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America. Dresden, NY: Wiswell Ruffin House.

Ignatiev, N. (1995) How the Irish Became White. NY & London: Routledge.

Innes, D. (1984). Anglo American and the Rise of Modern South Africa. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Jackson, K. T. (1967). The Ku Klux Klan in the City, 1915-1930. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jensen, D. (2002). The Culture Of Make Believe. White River, VT: Chelsea Green.

Kindy, K. (2015) “Fatal police shootings in 2015 approaching 400 nationwide.” Washington Post. May 30, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/fatal-police-shootings-in-2015-approaching-400-nationwide/2015/05/30/d322256a-058e-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html

Lester, J. C. & Wilson, D. L. (1973). Ku Klux Klan: Its Origin, Growth, and Disbandment, with an Introduction and Notes by Walter L Fleming. 1905; reprint NY: Da Capo Press.

​Mineo, L. (2015) “Background on Black Lives Matter: Scholars in African-American history draw parallels with past movements.” Harvard Gazette. Nov. 13, 2015. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/11/background-on-black-lives-matter/

Norberg-Hodge, H. (1991). Ancient Futures: Listening to Ladakh. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Norton, J. (1979). Genocide in Northwestern California: When Our Worlds Cried. San Francisco: Indian Historian Press.

“Police killings of African-American men: White Christians say isolated incidents, blacks see pattern.” RT USA. (2016). https://www.rt.com/usa/329359-majority-of-white-christians-believe/ 

Steiner, S. (1997). Fusang: The Chinese Who Built America. New York: Harper & Row

"Text of the Pro-Slavery Argument (1832, by Thomas Dew)." Dictionary of American History. 2003. Retrieved February 13, 2016 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401804763.html

Wood, D. B. (1997). “To Keep Peace, Prisons Allow Race to Rule.” Christian Science Monitor. September 16, 1997. http://www.csmonitor.com/1997/0916/091697.us.us.2.html

X, M. (1965). The Autobiography Of Malcom X, As Told to Alex Haley. New York: Random House.

Adjacent to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo is a War Museum with sympathetic literature to Japan’s actions, further generating outrage to Chinese and Korean onlookers. As the 70th anniversary of Japan’s surrender approaches, some Japanese museums and leaders are often accused of ‘revisionist history’ for justifying  past military aggression and claiming to have a positive role in decolonizing Asia from Western imperialism. Looking back did Japan have a positive influence on Asian independence? Is the historic anger by Japan’s occupied neighbors justified? Was the nature of Japanese expansion imperialistic or that of righteous liberation from European powers?

The Age of Imperialism

To push forward an investigation without putting Japan’s perspective into context would be a mistake. Surely European expansion in Asia was seen as a threat to Japanese sovereignty and way of life. By the 19th century, Great Britain, Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal, and arguably United States (via Philippines) all had colonial possessions in East Asia that were continuing to expand in territory and influence.  However, no greater event alerted Japanese concerns than Britain’s domination of China during the Opium Wars (1839-1860). This led to Japan’s Meiji Restoration, which was a complete overhaul of Japan’s military, economic, and government institutions to match the West in industry and ingenuity. In a remarkably short period, 1868- 1902, Japan went from a feudal society of shogunates to a modernized industrial power that defeated the Russian navy in the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05.  Although Japan, too, began to acquire more territory and colonies in the process, the urgency and desperation for Japan to defend itself from foreign subjugation after China’s humiliation cannot be over emphasized.

Early Imperial Japan: Security Interests and the Need For Raw Materials

Was the nature of Japanese expansion imperialistic or that of righteous liberation from European powers? Some of Japan’s territorial expansion can be justified for security purposes such as Kuril Islands (1875) and Ryukyu Islands (1879). Perhaps the most controversial chapter in Japanese History was Japan’s colonization of neighboring states in East Asia prior to World War II. A Prussian military advisor to Japan, Klemens Meckel, warned that control over the Korean Peninsula was also of security interest for Japan stating that Korea was like a “dagger pointed at the heart of Japan.” As the Russian Empire, China and others struggled for influence over the Hermit Kingdom, the warning was dually noted by the Japanese military.

As stated previously, during the Meiji Period, Japan sought to make itself an imperial power capable of matching the West. However, Japan lacked many natural resources and natural land territory required for this to happen in the Gilded Age. France and Britain’s military power thrived not on their factories alone, but rather on the cheap raw materials from colonies that were the source of their wealth. Korea was known to have coal and iron deposits needed for Japan’s industrial factories and agricultural land needed to feed its growing population. As Korea found itself caught in the three-way dug-of-war, the road to Japan’s Annexation of Korea was secured after Japanese military victories in the First Sino-Japanese War, (1894-95) and the Russo-Japanese War ten years later. For similar reasons, Taiwan was also annexed shortly after the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895. With these annexations came cheap raw materials for industrial growth and border security. French intellectual, Francis Garnier saw nothing unrealistic or irresponsible with his statement “nations without colonies are dead.”

Japan Enters the Global Stage

By 1914, expanding industrial powers were competing world wide for markets and influence. Since most corners of the world were either colonized or spoken for at this time, China was viewed by many as not only the last unclaimed market, but, for Japan in particular, it was also a security concern.  Since most of Japan’s neighbors were colonized by Europe, there was nowhere left for Japan to expand except westward into China. In 1914, Japan entered World War I on the side of the Allies in hopes of being rewarded with territorial gains in China. As a member of the Allies, Japan together with British forces occupied German holdings in China, such as Qingdao and Shandong, and Pacific island territories like Marianas, Carline, and Marshall Islands. After Germany’s surrender in 1918, Japan gained these German territories. Being the only non-White representatives at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, many non-Western nations saw inspiration in Japan. At the conference, Japan proposed a clause on racial equality to be included in the League of Nations charter. However, not only was this proposal rejected, Japan was mostly ignored in the peace discussions on crucial negotiations that determined the post-war world. This marked an important turning point in Japan’s cooperation with the West. Frustrated with the Allies, Japan formally ended its alliance in 1923 and left the League of Nations in 1933.

Soon after the Great Depression, it became apparent to Japan just how much it relied on other nations such as the United States for iron and other raw resources to feed its hungry manufacturers. In the spirit of self-sufficiency, in 1933 Japan invaded Manchuria for their fertile soil, valuable forests, and extensive mineral resources sparking the second Sino-Japanese war with China (1933-45). The foundations for World War II were now in place.

The Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere

Commonly dismissed by historians as imperial propaganda, the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere was first introduced by Japanese Foreign Minister Hachiro Arita over a radio broadcast in 1940.  It called for economic and cultural unity among all East Asian nations against Western imperialists, or “Asia for the Asians”. It declared that all of East Asia should be free from Western control and should achieve economic self-sufficiency with Japan as its main protector.  The Japanese Army leaders hailed the ideology as equivalent to USA’s Monroe Doctrine; that all of East Asia was as essential to Japan as Latin America was to the United States. The proposal was well received among audiences in South East Asian countries under colonial rule. Since most European powers were preoccupied at the moment fighting with Hitler, the Japanese seized the strategic timing to enforce the proposed ideology. Soon Japan was to launch its most aggressive and ambitious military campaigns yet. Since America’s military build up and possession of Philippines was seen as a strategic threat, the Japanese attacked the US naval fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii in 1941. Shortly after bombing Pearl Harbor, the Japanese began a swift and impressive session of military victories throughout Asia, taking over Philippines, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Burma, and Indonesia in only 6 months.

Few historians wish to acknowledge the welcome that some Southeast Asians gave Japanese invaders. Many nationalist movements against European occupation allied with Japan in their military endeavors. In Burma, members of the Burma Independence Army (BIA) accompanied advancing Japanese forces. In Indonesia, the overthrow of the Dutch colonial regime led to the release of Indonesian nationalists from prisons. Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno, decided to pursue his goal of true Indonesian independence by working with the Japanese. Hailed by many Indonesians as liberators, the Japanese allowed nationalist leaders to organize, establish chains of command and advance their nationalist aims through broadcasts in favor of independence. The Japanese also had some success in recruiting members of the Indian minority to enroll in the Indian National Army, a force created to liberate India from British rule. Perhaps the most troubling fact for western historians to rap their minds around is that this boost to South East Asian Nationalism made it impossible for South East Asia to become colonies ever again after World War II. The old pattern of European colonial dominance could never again be re-established after Japanese empowerment of Nationalists. Nowhere was this evidence more clear than the British and Dutch war in the East Indies shortly after WWII. The Netherlands fought a bitter war with Indonesia from 1945-49 until they finally gave up their attempt to maintain their colonial rule. France would also find the same difficulty when trying to return Indochinese possessions to their pre-war existence from 1945 till formally allowing independence in 1954. Although some resistance fighters existed before WWII, Japanese victories over allied forces and support for nationalist movements gave them the inspiration and organization necessary to resist their colonial masters.

Development of Infrastructure Under Japanese Rule

In addition to political self-sufficiency, many sympathetic observers have seen Japan’s rule over South East Asia and Korea as paramount to the modernization of their economic infrastructures.  For Korea and Taiwan, the rice production more than doubled (though about half was imported to Japan Proper). The output of many cash crops in Taiwan, such as sugar, was almost entirely the work of Japanese authorities. Japan reduced the use of opium, furthered education and built extensive railways in Korea. The populations of Taiwan and Korea exploded under Japanese rule. In Korea, peasant farmers were converted into factory workers and economic output increased. After Korea became independent, the infrastructure developed under Japanese rule benefited their economic growth and was vital in North and South Korea’s emergence as developing industries after the war.

Although economic activity improved in Japan’s colonies, it came at an environmental cost. Like any other colonizing force, Japan’s own interests remained paramount. Many natural resources were exploited in Korea and Manchuria. Many landscapes were stripped bare of vegetation to meet Japanese demand for lumber, minerals, and agricultural land. Today, Koreans remember Japanese rule for its over consumption of their natural resources and wartime atrocities.

Japanese War Atrocities

Is the historic anger by Japan’s occupied neighbors justified? While many in South East Asia clearly rejoiced Japan as liberators, not all experiences were the same under Japanese rule. For Korea, there was no previous occupying force before Japan. Although nearly all Japanese annexations faced some degree of resistance which inevitably led to violence, perhaps no where else were long term effects of Japanese rule felt in every way of life than in Korea from 1910-1945. Unlike Burma or Indonesia, Korean patriots and politicians were assassinated rather than negotiated with, marking a wide contrast with the puppet governments Japan established in other colonies. Japanese rule in Korea was absolute with almost no local participation in the colonial governance. Although Japan can credit itself with building hundreds of schools and increasing literacy, the catch was a colonial education that systematically taught Koreans to give up their traditional culture in exchange for learning Japanese language and a revisionist version of history where Korea was viewed as a subculture of Japan. The control of education and newspapers was designed to provide a mechanism for the broad transmission of Japanese cultural and political values in order to legitimize permanent Japanese rule.

In China, nowhere else had Japanese rule faced as staunch a resistance. Many in the Japanese military were not expecting the Chinese to fight so bitterly. The Imperial Army’s response was that of methodical brutality throughout the Chinese countryside. Many unarmed prisoners and civilians were executed and tortured. The greatest of all these atrocities was in Nanjing where an estimated 300,000 were killed and many women fell victim to gang rapes by Japanese soldiers. The news was so shocking to the American media that it became the greatest factor in causing the US to end its oil exports to Japan. Other war crime atrocities can be sited such as the ‘comfort women’ from Korea and China who were virtually kidnapped and sent to the frontlines to sexually satisfy Japanese soldiers. This and biological medical experiments on civilians and prisoners of war were later classified as torture under the Geneva Convention and the post-war War Crimes Tribunals.

Why All Is Not Forgiven

Perhaps the most difficult barrier to current Northeast Asian relations is the Japanese denial of these atrocities and current geopolitics. In spite of the wealth of eyewitness testimonies and sources, some conservative Japanese politicians and historians deny that the atrocities ever took place. Some Japanese officials, including a governor of state broadcaster NHK, have denied that the Nanking Massacre ever happened. This strand of denial may seem irrational if not put in context with today’s political climate of the region. Asian governments often use the history of WWII to promote patriotism and a geopolitical agenda. The Chinese government, which recently made December 13th a national memorial day, in remembrance of the Nanking Massacre, often sees Japan as a regional and economic rival over disputed island territories and commercial markets. Meanwhile, Japan’s conservatives can be compared to America’s Tea Party movement which has promoted nationalism to such a degree that visiting the Yasukuni Shrine to pray has become a prerequisite for any politician seeking higher office. It is well known to any Japanese politician that any direct apology to China or visit to the Nanking Massacre museum would mean political suicide. Korea, who also has a territorial dispute with Japan, uses the historical atrocities as a political distraction for each election season. It is much safer to challenge an opponent’s record of condemnation of Japan than to debate such divisive issues as North Korea and US military presents.

Conclusion: Japan’s Revisionist History vs History Told By the Victors

What makes history a science worthy of attention is the examination of multiple points of view and challenging established narratives or assumed truths. As Benjamin Franklin once put it “Arguments wouldn’t last long if only one side laid the wrong.” The reason why so many Japanese revisionists are gaining ground is because they are partially correct. As with most states, Western powers usually exempt their own guilt and go along with a simpler narrative that paints a clear picture of good and evil when the simple fact is every side in a conflict believes they have the best of intentions. As a result, few have spoken up about Japan’s role to end colonialism and promote racial equality in a world controlled by Western powers and ideology. Although Japan created inexcusable crimes against humanity in the past, its methods of colonial control differ little with how England subjugated the subcontinent of India, or how the United Stated violated rights of African Americans and First Nations people in their expansion. During the Meiji government, Japanese officials learned everything they knew about how to colonize a people by mimicking the best. Their cultural indoctrination of Korea was borrowed from Britain’s colonial tactics in India. Though never pure in righteousness in their intent, Japan’s actions did help liberate Asia from Western masters. Since Japan lost the war, it is Japan who is forced to openly apologize to the world for their crimes while everyone else remains silent about their own. A more suitable use for history would be a group therapy session where all the nations of the world annually apologize for their historic crimes and pledge to work with one another to build a better future. This would only be fair as Japan at the start of the 20th century was just a product of its time—another industrial power competing in a life or death struggle with other nations for control of resources. That is all. 

References

Eckert, C.J., Lee, K., Lew, Y.I., Robinson, M., Wagner, E.W. (1990). Korea Old And New: A History. Ilchokak              Publishers. Korea Institute. Harvard University.
Latourette, K.S. (1964). A Short History of the Far East. Fourth Edition. Macmillan Company. New York.
Milton, O. (2004). Southeast Asia: An Introductory History. Ninth Edition. Allen & Unwin. National Library of            Australia.
Simone, G. (2014). “A trip around Yushukan, Japan’s font of discord.” The Japan Times. 28 July 2014. 

Today, many accusations of propaganda are alleged. In the current reporting of the Ukraine crisis, global audiences are confused over the discrepancies in the news coverage coming from different media outlets. In April 2014, US Secretary of State John Kerry called Russia Today a “propaganda bullhorn” for Vladimir Putin. RT and others charged back that Fox News and CNN are full of corporate bias. If the coverage from multiple sources is examined objectively, it cannot be denied that there is an obvious information war. The question is a war against whom and for what purpose? Luckily, many researchers have studied state efforts to control the minds of their populations and history provides great documentation to shed light on the issue. The historical evidence shows propaganda is a necessary tool, for power is only tolerable through obedience and consent. Throughout the ages, this obedience or consent has been carried out through a variety of methods. These methods included religious appeal, nationalism, fear, and—most particularly—mass deception.

Religious Appeal

Perhaps the easiest and most historically well-known weapon to control the masses has been religion. Contrary to whatever message Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha meant to empower common people, elites have historically abused religious institutions and dogmas to justify social inequality and their right to rule. One of the most telling examples of this method in use was described by Titus Livy’s The History of Rome. The Roman Republic (509-27BC) was an oligarchy ruled by an elite political class known as the Patricians, or nobles. By limiting participation in government to only themselves, they ensured preservation of their power. For a while, only Patrician families had representatives in the Republic until the commoners, or Plebeians, created the office outside of the Senate called the Tribune. Plebeians would push for even greater voice in their government by adding consular power as a direct challenge to the Patrician nobles. To counter this threat, the elite used the religious dogma of the time, as Livy writes in The History of Rome, Book 4, “There occurred in that year pestilences and famine. Availing themselves of this opportunity in the next election of tribunes, the nobles said that the gods were angry with Rome for having abused the majesty of her authority, and the only way to placate them was to restore the election of tribunes to its ‘proper’ position.” The result was that the Plebs, terrified of this appeal to the gods, appointed only nobles as tribunes.

To further make the point, many of the privileged families of Rome claimed ancestry from gods as part of their prestige. Julius Caesar was of the Julii family, who claimed ancestry from the god, Venus. Elsewhere in the world, the Emperors of Japan were direct descendants of the sun god, Western royalty held the Divine Right of Kings, and Emperors of China affirmed a Mandate of Heaven. In India, the religious model for reincarnation has justified the staunch social inequalities of the Caste system. In this example, it was culturally assumed that elite families were rewarded for their deeds in their past lives, and the poor committed very terrible sins in theirs; hence warranting their life of slavery. These patterns of religious appeal to the masses to justify social inequality and authority are predictable throughout world history.   

The Foundations of Propaganda

Art, sculptures, and architecture have always served to project propaganda through images; however, with the birth of mass literacy and prolific publications, consent to authority would call for a more persuasive approach within the available literature to the public. The greatest challenge to ruling European elites in 19th century was the revolutionary zeal following the French Revolution. Across the board, rulers were forced to grant more and more concessions to the masses as old power began to decline. Like the Plebeians over two thousand years before, people demanded more direct representation in government. As newspapers became more prolific, the power of ideas and words became apparent; hence the beginning of the information war. Throughout the Industrialized world, news coverage benefiting the needs of the ruling elite and imperialism were promoted, and words challenging ruling authority were considered seditious. As early as the 18th century, in the doctrine of seditious libel, truth was no defense. Thanks to cultural indoctrination and war propaganda, America was able to fulfill its “Manifest Destiny” that harbored many religious and nationalist overtones, which the press helped to promote. In publications throughout the period, the United States was not an aggressive invading force, but rather defending itself from the evil Indian savages, Mexicans, and Spanish to justify greater land expansion. In the Early 20th Century, erudite intellectuals would later praise themselves and Woodrow Wilson for having imposed their will upon a reluctant public majority to participate in WW1 with the aid of propaganda, fabrications about German atrocities, and other such devices.  Fifteen years after WWI, Harold Lasswell explained in the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences that “we should not succumb to democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests.” In other words, they are not. Within the sociological literature of the time, it was more or less assumed that the best judges are the elites, who must, therefore, impose their will for the common good. Using classic historical tactics, Woodrow Wilson’s Red Scare demolished unions and other dissident elements. A prominent feature of the time was the suppression of independent politics and free speech. Wilson’s Creel Commission, dedicated to creating war fever among the pacifist public, had demonstrated the efficiency of organized propaganda with the cooperation of loyal media and intellectuals. The commission judged, “one of the best means of controlling news was flooding news channels with ‘facts’ or what amounted to official information.” After WWII, historian Thomas Bailey observed that because the will of the masses cannot be trusted to guide the common good, “our statesmen are forced to deceive them into an awareness of their own long-run interests. Deception of the people may in fact become increasingly necessary.”  

The Public Relations Industry

According to public relations pioneer Edward Bernays (1891-1995), “the very essence of the democratic process” is “the freedom to persuade and suggest,” what he calls “the engineering of consent.” “A leader frequently cannot wait for the people to arrive at even a general understanding. Democratic leaders must play their part in engineering consent,” applying “scientific principles and tried practices to the task of getting people to support ideas and programs.” Throughout the 20th century and today, the public relations industry spends vast resources “educating the American people” to ensure a favorable climate for business. “The public mind” is “the only serious danger confronting a company,” an early AT&T executive observed. In its study of business propaganda, the La Follette Committee of the Senate observed that “strong arm methods and propaganda campaigns were used to subdue the labor movement,” particularly in the 1937 Johnstown steel strike. These campaigns spent millions telling the public that nothing was wrong and that “grave dangers lurked” in the proposed remedies of the unions. Today, many Americans are probably aware that they are flooded with business propaganda in commercials and, at times, in films themselves. However, the words and image associations of propaganda do not simply end when the news broadcast (which is supposed to inform the public of the world around them) begins. In fact, it never ends—as will be shown later.  

The Agenda Of Propaganda

Although hidden from the national dialogue, the agenda is bluntly documented in primary sources following the 60s social movements. In 1975 the Trilateral Commission conducted a study on the “governability” of democracies and concluded that the television media had become a “notable new source of power that contributes to “reduction of governmental authority at home and decline in influence abroad.” In the report’s own words, they called for a “moderation in democracy.” In other words, their view was that the general public must be more apathetic and driven away from political debate and action if democracy is to survive. A Freedom House study on media coverage of the Vietnam War concluded that because of “biased” coverage of the sixties, the media lost the war in Vietnam, thus harming the cause of democracy and freedom the US fought for in vain. In a study of mobilization of popular opinion to promote state power, Benjamin Ginsberg asserts that “western governments have used market mechanisms to regulate popular perspectives.” According to Noam Chomsky’s research on propaganda, since those segments of the media that can reach a substantial audience are major corporate conglomerates, Chomsky concludes the “ideological worldviews of upper class elites will dominate the marketplace of ideas through sponsored advertisement. The influence of corporate advertisers upon news journalism is astonishing. Journalist projects unsuitable for corporate sponsorship tend to die out.” One such example he cites is how the public TV station WNET lost its corporate support as a result of a documentary about multinationals buying up huge tracts of land in the third world.

Lies and Bias Reporting: Noam Chomsky’s Propaganda Model

In a review of media coverage of the United States from 1950 until the late 80s, Herman & Chomsky (1989) show that mainstream news fits well within a propaganda model and conformity to the needs of business elites. Their hypothesis was that stories favorable to American business and foreign policy would be reported and unfavorable stories to this interest would be ignored, or have negative editorial coverage. The accuracy of their propaganda model is quite shocking. Although the Soviet violations of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements after WWII are the topic of much literature, Chomsky notes, “little attention has been given to U.S. violations of these agreements and their consequences, though qualitatively not different from the Soviets.” In the Vietnam War, the assumption was that the United States was defending democracy in South Vietnam. However, the “US established the murderous Diem dictatorship to block promised elections when it looked like the wrong side would win. Meanwhile, the press looked the other way and instead reported on how the Chinese were funding the Communist Vietminh to “threaten ‘free Vietnam’” as the New York Times reported,” cited by Chomsky.

In order to make his analysis more concrete Chomsky & Herman analyzed global atrocities. Chomsky considers three categories of massacres: called “constructive,” “benign,” and “nefarious” bloodbaths. One example was his analysis of media coverage of the mass killings in Cambodia under Pol Pot (a “constructive” bloodbath) and the US backed Indonesian killings in East Timor in the 1970s (A “benign” bloodbath). Since both were state massacres against their own populations and took place at almost exactly the same time, it made a side-by-side comparison more valid. As expected from the propaganda model, reporting of Timor killings against the impoverished leftists were barely covered by western journalists. However, many stories of refugees fleeing South East Asia to escape the “horrors of Communism” were reported and made headlines throughout the decade. The thousands fleeing US backed terror states in Latin America and East Timor did not fit into this narrative and therefore were not reported. Also in the 1970s, El Salvador had a proliferation of social movements aimed at organizing the El Salvadorian economy to benefit the people. Since this was a threat to the established system already in place that benefited the multinational corporations, the reaction was a violent outburst of state terror organized by the United States. Independent press in El Salvador was destroyed by the US backed regime. There was not one word or editorial comment in the New York Times nor from other news outlets in the years since. Instead, outcry lied with Nicaragua and their alleged atrocities. In the 1980s, the Nicaraguan government was resisting efforts by the CIA to instigate a coup. All violence on behalf of the Sandinistas consumed American press as proof of the aggressiveness of Communist totalitarians. By 1986, US support for the Contras to overthrow the Sandinistas was opposed by 80% of Americans. As Congress debated the issue, Chomsky observed “the New York Times and the Washington Post ran no fewer than 85 opinion columns on the matter. Although some were divided on Contra aid, all 85 were critical of the Sandinistas. Opinion pieces from Latin American scholars and others with sympathetic views for the Sandinistas were rejected.” “The vast majority of ordinary Central Americans were also left out of the debate. They only accounted for 9% of attributed news sources.” In the editorials reviewed in the six years of conflict, “the Times never mentioned such matters as the assassination of Archbishop Romero or the raid by US backed security forces to destroy evidence of his assassination.” On June 27, 1986, the World Court condemned the US for its support for the Contras and illegal economic warfare. As consistent with the propaganda model, the American press portrayed the World Court as criminals and the rule of law was held inapplicable to the United States.

Meanwhile, Salvadorian and Guatemalan atrocities that claimed the lives of approximately 150,000 people during this period, or the US client Honduras who left hundreds of thousands to starve to death while the country exported food for profit in the agribusiness; all went unreported in the media. Also at the same time, the US client state of Israel was launching illegal aggression against Lebanon that virtually annexed part of its territory. Palestinian refugee camps and Lebanonese towns were bombed. Dozens of civilians were killed or wounded. Unlike Nicaragua, Chomsky detects how “these operations were barely reported and had no outrage.” Israel would launch 26 raids into Lebanon that year, some completely unprovoked. A UN condemnation of the raid voted 14 to 1 with the US vetoing. “The fact that Israel maintained a security zone in Southern Lebanon controlled by terrorist mercenaries passes without notice, as does Israel’s regular hijacking of ships in international waters and other actions that do not get reported.” As Chomsky concludes from his analysis, readers of the newspapers “did not receive a range of perceptions during this time. Only the view that follows the propaganda model for the needs of the state finds a narrative. The fact that the Sandinistas diverted resources to the poor majority, improved health and literacy standards finds no words in the press. Such matters are unhelpful to required doctrine and better ignored.” As for the reasons why such stories fall on deaf hears, Chomsky continues, “The underlying assumption is that there is a stable international order that the United States must defend. They propose to construct a global system that the United States would dominate and within which U.S. business interests would thrive. The Soviet Union of course being the major threat to this planned order generates a media narrative opposing the brutality of Soviet leaders in Afghanistan while cheerfully assisting such contemporary monsters as the Ethiopian Junta or neo-Nazi generals in Argentina.” Countless other examples can be found in Chomsky’s book Necessary illusions: Thought Control In Democratic Societies.

What Should Be Well Known

There is nothing controversial about historic efforts by powerful parties to “engineer consent.” This trend has existed in every society and should be taught in every school as historical fact. The blending of nationalist fervor and religious images and words is a tactic as old as civilization itself. If one were to take a critical observation of society around them, these familiar messages are very common. When considering historic precedent and media coverage throughout the Cold War and beyond, it should be of little surprise that the accuracy of current affairs is compromised in favor of the wealthiest 1%. This has historically always been the case, and there is no society that fairs better to the knowledge of the editor. As Noam Chomsky concludes, “News media today can (and is) subject to convenient inaccuracies and improper reporting of facts. The result has been the dismantling of state programs designed to protect the poor, the transfer of wealth to elites, and the conversion of the state closer to a welfare state for the privileged.” The modern system of propaganda has been scientifically constructed over the years by liberal intellectuals, sociologists, and business elites to create what is now called the “public relations” industry, or PR. It should be remembered that PR stands for propaganda when seen. From the White House to Monsanto, it is a skilled art that every institution must have. It infiltrates news media through the market of advertisement. The majority of television news has a bias towards more wealthy audiences, which improve advertising rates. According to Chomsky, “the major media are corporations ‘selling’ privileged audiences to other businesses. It would hardly come as a surprise if the picture of the world they present were to reflect the perspectives and interests of the buyers of advertisement. The media are vigilant guardians protecting privilege from the threat of public understanding and participation.” The simple fact is that news organizations are institutions and institutions throughout history contain actions and beliefs. Since the time of Woodrow Wilson, exaggeration of the Communist threat has contained actions and beliefs in American history. Critics of U.S. aggression or of that from U.S. client states, such as Israel, are ridiculed as “partisans of Hanoi,” “apologists for Communism,” or in the case of Israel, “anti-Semitic” or “self hating Jews.” Ever since the 1800s, the overriding agenda has been the commitment to block the free flow of ideas. This is sure to continue in the new digital age. All coverage of Iraq, Ukraine, or elsewhere is distorted “by deeper plans to turn the third world into industrial capitalist centers. Its regions must fulfill their functions as sources of raw materials and markets, and must be exploited.“ The fact that all major news networks are biased is well documented in history and deserves to become commonly known in order prevent such disastrous failures in investigative reporting, such as public support for the 2003 Iraq War, from ever happening again. 


References

Chomsky, N. (1993). Manufacturing consent: Media and propaganda. Boulder, CO: David Barsamian.

Chomsky, N. (1989). Necessary Illusions: Thought Control In Democratic Societies. ON, Canada: CBC Massey Lectures.

Jensen, D. (2002). The Culture Of Make Believe. White River, VT: Chelsea Green.

Livy, & Warrior, V. M. (2006). The history of Rome, books 1-5. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub.

LoGiurato, B. (2014, April 25). RT Is Very Upset With John Kerry For Blasting Them As Putin's 'Propaganda Bullhorn'. Retrieved August 08, 2020, from https://www.businessinsider.com/john-kerry-rt-propaganda-bullhorn-russia-today-2014-4

Machiavelli, N., Walker, L. J., & Clough, C. H. (1991). The discourses of Niccolò Machiavelli. London: Routledge.

While this piece is being written, Ukraine, Russia, and China are just a few of many states around the world struggling with internal troubles similar to that of Byzantium long ago. It is for this reason that the Byzantine Empire deserves our attention.


History has shown that it is the destiny of all empires to fall and the 1,000 year old Byzantine Empire was no exception. Born from the Eastern Roman Empire, it later survived the fall of the West after 476. After the barbarian king Odoacer deposed the last Emperor of Western Rome, the Eastern Empire continued to thrive until 1453 when its capital city of Constantinople, or Byzantium (Modern day Istanbul), was sacked by the Ottoman Turks. Whether it is 476, 1453, or 1991 when the Soviet Union fell, these dates and events do not tell us the whole story. Empires do not simply fall because their enemies managed to breach their walls and are thus defeated by foreigners. Instead, every empire or government must first defeat themselves before they can be weakened enough to be destroyed by their ambitious rivals. The causes for Byzantium’s fall did not ensue over night, as is the case with any great empire. Usually the purpose of an empire’s decline are the result of many years of structural weaknesses that manifest themselves over a long period of time till the halls of government become completely inadequate to deal with a particular crisis when it occurs. Many historians study these reasons or causes that lead to an empire’s fall and make a science of it; offering their own hypothesis as to what caused empires such as Byzantium to decline. Thus, the question emerges: what caused the fall of the Byzantine Empire? And what does this say about state power?

Economic Downturn

Without a stable economy, every brick on which a state is built on suffers in one form or another. Peasants and even soldiers begin to starve and revolt as a result of a failing economy. At its peak, the Byzantine Empire had one of the most thriving economies in the world. One of the keys to Byzantium’s success was always its geographic location between Europe and Asia. Its merchants were able to trade textiles and other rare commodities from Asia to the Mediterranean world. Byzantium was also in control of very important real-estate. Such valuable territories included Egypt and Asia Minor where Byzantium received its vital grain supplies to feed its populace. In the 7th century, the Empire would permanently lose Egypt to the rise of Islamic invasions. Although this dealt a significant blow to Byzantium, the empire would still hold strong for another eight centuries only to be a shadow of its former dominance. Further territorial loses in Asia Minor during the 11th century would lead Emperor Alexius I to make rash decisions out of desperation. He granted the Italian city state of Venice numerous trade concessions to gain their military assistance against the Normans and the Turks during the Crusades. As a result, ultimately, Venice would eventually become an economic power that rivaled that of Byzantium. This would lead to the Empire giving Genoa trading concessions as well in an attempt to enlist their aid to counter the increasing power of Venice. Alexius I’s diplomatic decision of giving Venice these huge trade concessions was a strategic success at the time; however, it was only a temporary solution to the Empire’s need for military assistance. This brought long term consequences that would have both Venice and Genoa dominating trade in the Aegean and the rest of the Mediterranean. The loss of this vital income would lead to Byzantium’s failure to afford a significant army or naval force to safeguard its borders.

Cultural and Religious Identity

Perhaps the most controversial and troublesome in today’s climate, ‘culture’ is a very important aspect for many states. Such categories of culture consist of religion, language, ethnicity, and traditions; all of which are vital for holding a society together. Without cultural unity, states begin to divide into rival factions that cease to cooperate with one another for the good of the state, but rather for the good of their faction. This can be seen over and over again with the USSR, Iraq, Syria, and now Ukraine. For the Byzantine Empire, the one thing that united its people, other than the Greek language, was the state religion—Christianity; however, Christianity itself was far from unified. The cultural division that had the greatest impact on Byzantine’s decline was the religious schism of 1054 between the Catholic West and the Orthodox East. This cultural tie with the west was broken because of disagreements over matters of doctrine, religious practice, and papal authority. The division would later cause the lack of much needed support Byzantium required from the west to defend its territories from the Islamic Turks. Although the Catholic Pontiff responded to Byzantium’s cries for help in the actions of the Crusades, many of these ‘Crusaders’ (particularly during the Fourth Crusade) were very hostile towards their Christian neighbors in the east, and in 1204, these Latin counterparts actually sacked Constantinople, like they would any other infidel. This event had horrific consequences on the Byzantine economy, as shops and cathedrals alike were looted by the Venetian sailors and other Crusaders from the west. Additional quarrels with the west, such as that with the Normans, left a weak and uncooperative force to face the Islamic enemy during the Crusades. For more on how the Great Schism affected the Byzantine Empire, read Jonathan Phillips’ The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople. 

Furthermore, the cultural division between the Eastern and Western Churches was even more passionate towards the very end. Instead of unifying the two Churches of Christendom, the Crusades only resulted in each side sharing an increased bitterness towards one another. The last emperors of Byzantium again appealed to the west for help just a few short years before the final fall of Constantinople. However, the Pope would only ‘consider’ sending aid in return for a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the See of Rome. Of course the Orthodox citizenry and clergy intensely resented Roman authority and the Latin Rite. This unsuccessful unity with the west at the start of the crusades would fail to drive back Islamic conquerors such as the Ottoman Turks from becoming a greater threat to the Empire.At the very end, the cultural distinction between the east and west was so powerful that not even the sight of the Ottoman Turks at the city walls was enough to overcome their differences.

Cultural Traditions and Ethnic Lines

Not only was cultural division apparent between Byzantium and its allies but far worse were its internal cultural and ethnic divisions. One commonly known cliché coined by Benjamin Franklin is that “a house divided amongst itself cannot stand.” Thus a government cannot stand strong if there is no unity to hold it together. The Byzantine Empire experienced numerous internal conflicts and civil wars that continued to stress its unity, particularly during its later history. These conflicts consisted of disputed successors to the imperial throne, as well as peasant and military rebellions. In order to put an end to the barbarian pillages from its northern frontiers, Byzantium conquered the Slavic and Germanic territories of Bulgaria and Serbia. This newly acquired territory consisted of people with a pagan culture. When these peoples became part of the empire they never fully assimilated into Byzantine society. Therefore, whenever central authority demonstrated signs of weakness, the Bulgars and Serbs began to factionalize and rebel against Byzantium. Meanwhile, as the lower classes continued to experience high inflation and higher taxes, the peasantry began to resent the empire. Peasant revolt was at its peak after the rule of the Latins following the sack of Constantinople in 1204. In order to avoid the Latins from retaking the city, Emperor Michael VIII forced the Orthodox Church to submit to Rome; again a temporary solution that angered the peasantry. As a result of all these variables mentioned, civil war would rack the empire throughout the 14th century from all factions. It was during these rampant civil wars that the Turkish armies were able to gain the most territory from the Empire. 

Political Decline and Class Warfare

Economic and societal issues can only become a problem on a large scale for so long. It is the responsibility of government to correct such economic ills and stabilize social order. However, Byzantium’s political infrastructure was incapable of sustaining itself due to numerous problems within its bureaucracies. Perhaps the greatest defect in Byzantine government was the monarchy’s constant conflict with its aristocracy. The Emperor was the sole and absolute ruler, and his power was regarded as having divine origins. Offices of the bureaucracy were arranged around the emperor and held by members of the aristocracy. The aristocracy and emperor were always at odds for greater decision making in matters of state. This conflict was good in some ways in that it created checks and balances in government. However, this competition exploded into civil war when Emperor Andronikos III’s successor was far too young to rule and the resulting regency’s rivalry strained the empire politically in the 14th century. The Byzantine elite’s desire for greater power would eventually become so great that they would exploit the bureaucratic system which they controlled. In response to the ever increasing challenge to Imperial authority by the social elite, it was never the interest of many emperors to completely expel the Turks from Asia Minor; for the empire’s expansion back into Asia Minor would have meant sharing more power with feudal lords, thus weakening the power of the emperor.

Military Decline

Further bureaucratic decline can be witnessed in the disintegration of Byzantine’s traditional military structure. A strong military is always essential for any empire’s existence. It protects and safeguards a society from any foreign entity that wishes harm or exploitation of its populace. Since its birth, the Byzantine Empire had been completely surrounded by enemy invaders from all directions. Byzantium was able to defend itself against constant invasion by creating a decentralized fighting force known as the ‘theme system’. Since Byzantium’s military forces held greater independence from central command, they were able to deal with threats quickly and efficiently at the local level. However, eventually the theme system would be viewed as a threat to the emperor’s authority.  Since it consisted of decentralized power, challengers to imperial authority could easily manipulate the theme system during civil war. The emperor’s disbandment of the theme system meant that armies became more expensive in the long run, which reduced the number of troops that the emperors could afford to supply. It also meant that the Byzantine military became more reliant on the competence of a single individual emperor than the commanders on the field. Frequent civil war also caused many emperors to fear a powerful military. As a result, royalty of the late empire began to rely more on mercenaries than native troops. According to Machiavelli’s The Prince, it is a fatal mistake for any state to rely heavily on mercenaries to fight wars for them. Machiavelli (1513) states that “mercenaries…are useless and dangerous…for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends,” but “cowardly before enemies” (p. 55). On top of being ineffective, these mercenaries were also expensive and quick to turn on the empire if they were not paid to their satisfaction. The fall of the empire’s traditional theme system would ensure Turkish advantage in the final battles to come.

Summary and Today’s Relevance

As demonstrated, the decline of Byzantium involved the decline of the many characteristics that made up its society. Like most world leaders today, Byzantium’s societal ills were created by emperors who found temporary solutions to the problems of their time that would eventually prove harmful to the empire in the long run. None of these problems were obvious at the time, but instead took centuries to manifest themselves and slowly rot out the heart of one of the greatest empires on earth. The outcome of these poor decisions impacted the empire’s economy, cultural unity, and political bureaucracies. Much like the US’s power shift to China, the empire sold out its own economic strength to Venetian merchants. Much like Ukraine, its society was too divided culturally because of too many unassimilated Bulgars and Serbs who were only too eager to exploit the weakness of central authority. The competition between the bureaucratic elites and imperial authority would distract both governing parties from their duties to the empire and defense against foreign invaders. In the end, the Ottoman Turks would find little difficulty in finishing off an empire already dying after weakening itself.

As for today’s political climate, Ukraine’s current civil strife has mostly to do with disunity along ethnic, political, linguistic, and regional lines; and an encroaching power ready to exploit its weakness. Although many states around the world are stable with demographic diversity, history teaches us that when these cultural differences are limited to specific regions, it is the most dangerous. As would occur in Byzantine Bulgaria, the Bulgars were quick to take advantage of disruptions in central authority for greater autonomy. This would also prove true in the Balkans after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and again under the Soviet Union. Many states such as USA, China, and Russia have corrected this problem through violence, cultural re-education, or regional colonization. China has encouraged ethnic Hans to settle in such provinces as Tibet and Xinjian to minimize the regional identities there, while Czarist Russia has sent ethnic Russians to various strategic regions throughout its empire for the same reason. Hence an inescapable truth emerges: for empires to exist, violence or cultural identity is typically sacrificed for the sake of conformity. Methods of conformity can take on many forms: propaganda, nationalism, religion, or violence. These four forces are as frequent today as they have ever been. When the first three methods fail, then the latter is sure to follow.

 

Civilization today has an addiction and dependency on overconsumption. The environment and all of Earth’s life support systems are in decline. Data backing this research can be found in Derrick Jensen’s End Game or in every peer-reviewed article published in the past 20 years on the subject. If we look to our own history for examples, we will find that the only society to face a similar challenge was the Qing Dynasty in China in the 19th century. In Qing society, there were many voices who warned the court that their way of life needed to evolve, adapt, or die. How did one of history’s oldest and greatest civilizations encounter such an exigent choice, why did they fail to act, and are we doomed to follow?

The Marvels of Chinese Civilization

While Western Civilization was still in the Dark Ages, China was thriving in the East. More than any other people, the Chinese had a long continuous history unbroken by major cultural revolutions. At almost the same era as classical Greece, philosophy and learning flourished in China and would continue to define Chinese society 2000 years later. The most important development in their culture was the emergence of the many schools of thought under the Zhou Dynasty (1100-221 BC). Earnest souls arose to save China from the strife and the exploitation of the weak by the strong which characterized the age of the Warring States. The greatest of these thinkers was Confucius, whose doctrine of filial piety gave order and structure to everyday social interactions. His teachings were so effective that society went relatively unchanged for over two millennia.

Another great philosopher who impacted the Chinese way of life was Mo Zi. He believed the universe to be governed by a Being who loves mankind. Since this Being loves all men, men ought to love one another. He opposed aggressive war and insisted that consumption and production be regulated to what he deemed to be the necessities. Although war and rebellions continued in China, social order was never significantly threatened. For more on how the teachings of Confucius, legalism, Taoism, and Mo Zi preserved social order I recommend reading Romance of the Three Kingdoms. In these historical accounts, even sworn enemies on the battlefield would treat each other with the upmost respect. Men sacrificed their lives before losing their honor. It was truly one of the greatest achievements of civilized society in world history.

The Chinese were also creative innovators. Centuries before their western counterparts, the Chinese discovered gunpowder, invented the clock and magnetic compass, developed astrology and advanced shipbuilding, and may have discovered the Americas prior to Christopher Columbus. For evidence of Chinese colonies in the Americas and elsewhere, Gavin Menzies, in his book 1421, lists such evidence as DNA tests of Native Americans in Sacramento and a tribe in Peru that spoke fluent Chinese to support his premise. There are even pre-Columbus maps that have survived showing the west coast of North America and east coast of South America. The Chinese also displayed marked skill in industry. The factory system of labor-saving machinery such as the nineteenth and twentieth-centuries in Europe’s Industrial Revolution had long existed in bamboo contraptions powered by flowing rivers in China around the eleventh century AD. In comparison to China, during the Medieval Ages European societies were living in backwardness, their economic situation was in ruin, and Europeans understood little to nothing about astrology.

One of the ways Chinese society was able to preserve itself over the millennia was the development of the examination system. The test was required for all government officials to qualify them for holding public office, regardless of socio-economic status. The examination was extremely difficult and required perfect knowledge of classical literature and expert penmanship. This gateway into administrative positions ensured the continuation of Confucian practices in government. Thanks to this system, Medieval China had a bureaucracy so advanced and complex that it was only matched elsewhere in the west by the 1920s, in terms of the number of bureaucratic offices and positions.

Foreign Relations

To the Chinese, there could be only one legitimate ruler for all civilized mankind and all others were rightly subordinate to him. All foreign kingdoms recognized China as the center of civilization and paid tribute to the Emperor. Calling themselves “Zhong Guo,” or “Middle Kingdom” the Chinese recognized their Emperor as Heaven’s representative on Earth. Given China’s advanced society, this title was universally recognized by Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, and even the Mongols. In the rare events when China was conquered by foreigners, such as the Mongols, the foreign occupiers would simply mimic Chinese customs and leave the bureaucratic system untouched. The Mongol Dynasty under Kublai Khan would become Chinese in every sense. After their great sea explorations under Emperor Zhu Di in the 1420s, the Chinese held enough pride in their society to confidently isolate themselves from the rest of the world. Sure that the barbaric outsiders had little to teach or offer the Middle Kingdom, the fourth emperor of the Ming Dynasty issued an edict to burn all the Chinese junk ships and limit foreign trade. China was more isolated than ever with the firm belief that its Emperor sat on the throne of the center of the world under heaven.

A Historic New Threat From Without

While China remained closed off, the West had a Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution. A global shift in trade had begun at the beginning of the 18th century. It was the birth of the capitalist free market ideology in the West—a revolution that China was completely oblivious to. Both the increased economic capacity of the West and changing ideology began to conflict with the Chinese way of life. It was through Great Britain that the accentuated threat from the West came first. When they arrived, the Chinese regulated their foreign trade through the Canton System, which limited trade to one location in Canton (or Guangzhou). In addition, this trade had to exist through middlemen known as the Hong Merchants. Trade would occur between the British and Chinese for sometime. Rare silks, porcelain, and other desired rarities were purchased by England’s East India Company in exchange for silver. Though satisfactory to the Chinese, this controlled system could never be enough for an Industrialized Capitalist society that requires growth, not sustainability. The British had a sense that there was still an enormous untapped potential for wealth in China waiting to be exploited if only there was way to sell the Chinese something that they desired that Britain had to offer. Eventually it was discovered that Opium from Britain’s colony, India, could be introduced to the Chinese. The negative and addictive effects of the drug were well known to the British and they began to market this drug to Canton. After the Chinese population was hooked, the British were finally able to reverse the flow of silver leaving their economy into China. Seeing the disastrous effects opium addiction had on their society, it did not take long for the Qing government to abolish it. In 1834 the monopoly, which the East India Company had enjoyed in British trade with China, was terminated. Fueled by their free trade ideology, the British saw this as an act of barbarism. Hostile relations between the East and West were inevitable. 

The Opium Wars and Loss of Sovereignty

The Chinese government was very unhappy over the situation, partly because of the effects of the drug upon the population, and partly because the traffic was draining the Empire of its silver. In Canton a special commissioner with the assignment of ending the opium trade compelled the foreign merchants to cease importing the commodity. He achieved this result by the virtual imprisonment of the entire foreign community. When Great Britain decided to respond militarily, they did so under the guise of “protecting free trade” and not as an aggressive drug cartel—which they were. Clashes between the British and Chinese armed forces followed. The Qing government was oblivious to the strength and capabilities of the British navy. Since the Chinese had almost no experience or technical expertise in fighting naval battles, the once proud Chinese military was embarrassingly swept aside by the far superior British forces. In spite of this, the Chinese did not consent to negotiations until the English had captured Zhenjiang and threatened to attack Nanjing. When the Qing finally capitulated, the British treaty that followed abolished all restrictions on trade and restored opium sales. It was followed by treaties with several other Western powers, most notably the United States in 1844. However, this still was not enough to satisfy the British. After 1852 the English pressed for a review of their treaty with the granting of added privileges to foreigners. When the Qing government refused to renegotiate, hostilities broke out again in 1856. Soon the French joined the English and captured Canton and then Tianjin, thus threatening the capital, Peking. Suddenly old European adversaries became united in their efforts to exploit China’s vulnerability. Shortly after, treaties were negotiated in 1858 between Great Britain, France, Russia, and the United States. In 1859, when the Western powers arrived off the coast for the purpose of ratifying the treaty, they found that Chinese authorities, intent upon preserving the fiction of the superiority of the Empire over Western states, were insisting that the route be followed which was customarily that of the tribute-bearing embassies from subordinate princes in the Far East. To this the British and French envoys would not accede and the war was renewed with Peking being taken. The later treaties virtually made the Chinese second-class citizens in their own country with a complete loss in self-determination. From 1860 to 1920, this point forward in Chinese history is known as the Great Humiliation when China fell victim to imperialist Europeans ready to carve up their share of China. The Chinese felt themselves to be branded as barbarians and inferiors—a status peculiarly galling to a people who long esteemed themselves the most civilized of mankind.

Disaster Strikes Chinese Society

Never before had the Chinese dealt with such a powerful foe who threatened their way of life. Every phase of Chinese life (political, economic, intellectual, social, moral, and religious) was strikingly affected. For magnitude, this period was unequaled by any other people in all human history. The Qing Court was completely unprepared and perhaps incompetent to deal with the crisis. Peasant rebellions against both the Europeans and Qing government were rampant. Opium continued to flood China’s domestic economy. Millions of Chinese became addicted to opium, which became a tremendous social problem. People became less productive members of their society. All the types of crime and anti-social behavior that we associate with modern drug addictions manifested throughout Southern China. An added economic effect was the demand by the British to receive payment in silver for opium. As silver began to flow out of China at a rapid rate, this caused several adverse ripple effects to the economy. By the mid 1800s, there was a shortage of capital for investment and the money supply was destabilized. The Qing government had difficulty dealing with these challenges due to policy debates among the leadership. As the Chinese economy continued to decline, the wealth gap began to widen sending countless numbers into poverty. The non-responsiveness of the government led to sporadic peasant uprisings against the Qing. The most catastrophic of these uprisings was the Taiping Rebellion (1850-64). It gained momentum after the rebels, led by Hong Xiu Quan, captured Nanjing. The Taiping rebels demanded reform and an end to the feudalist system. In what was now a civil war the Western powers, interestingly enough, backed the Qing government. Their assistance helped them finally crush the rebellion after 14 long years of bloody conflict. The warfare exacerbated poverty and famine, and worsened overall life in China. The best estimates allege 20 million civilians and soldiers died. That is more deaths than in World War I. As the status quo continued, the Chinese were never able to make significant gains in industrial production or a modern military force until the 20th century. Dissent and civil strife continued afterwards. Where there was once a peaceful countryside, much of the empire was now honeycombed with secret revolutionary societies. Civil strife and banditry threw still more below the poverty line and further swelled the ranks of those who took to fighting or robbery in preference to starvation.

Clash of Cultures  

As a culture, the Chinese had always held as axiomatic the conviction that all men should be subordinate to their Emperor. They were disposed to hold a group, such as a family or a village, responsible for the deeds of each its members and to consider an accused person guilty until he could prove his innocence. In the years leading to the hostilities, the English were outraged by Chinese behavior towards their merchants. The English felt that guilt for a particular offense was lodged legally and solely in the individual and that the burden of proof in establishing guilt must be placed upon the accusers. The refusal of the Chinese to enter into diplomatic relations and the insistence of the Chinese that methods of trial and punishment be applied to foreign offenders under Chinese law—all became increasingly annoying to the English who in time would deem these actions intolerable.

A Failure to Adapt

For the first time, this 2000 year-old culture had to make radical decisions about how to change their way of life to save their society from further enslavement by their Western imperial masters. Unlike the Aztecs, Aborigines, or other indigenous peoples before them who fell victim to white men, Chinese society did not fall ill to plague or lack a serious capability to resist. The Qing state leadership lacked creativity in their capacity to deal with these new challenges. Their response was always frustrated by their bureaucratic way of doing everything the way it was always done. Confucian doctrine made it difficult to propose new ideas that were not based on well established precedence. Several efforts were made by the Chinese to throw off their foreign shackles; however, superior weapons and wealth thwarted each attempt. Many began to realize that if the Chinese ever wanted to regain their independence, radical changes were needed in their economy and government. Some looked to Japan’s Meiji Government as a successful example. The Japanese were sending their students to schools all over the world to develop the necessary technical skills to modernize their economy. When China attempted to do the same, they were met with greater resistance from their own culture. As Japan modernized, they became an equal threat to China. The Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) revealed the true weakness of the realm. After suffering a humiliating defeat to a former tributary state, it now seemed clear that China was helpless. This only emboldened Western antagonism as each felt that if it did not obtain a slice of the Chinese melon its rivals would crowd it out entirely. Numbers of far seeing Chinese were keenly aware that the West could not be held at a distance. If China were to maintain her political independence she must take over some features of Western civilization. On the other hand were those who would expel the foreigner and resume the isolation which had been the imperial policy before the pressure had become so acute. The reformers first had their way, but the reactionaries then took charge.

Changing China

By 1911 remarkable progress was finally attained in eliminating the domestic growth and importation of opium. In 1902, the intermarriage of Chinese ethnic backgrounds was permitted. The most far reaching of the reforms were those in education. Steps were taken to develop government schools in which Western as well as Chinese subjects were taught. A ministry of education was created in 1905 and the existing civil service examinations based upon the Chinese classics were abolished. A commission was sent to the United States, Europe, and Japan to study the political institutions there. A constitution was promised. Provincial assemblies were inaugurated in 1909 and a national assembly was convened. A Republic was eventually formed though those chosen for actual administration were of the imperial government. Short cuts under autocratic direction, whether of an individual or a group, were doomed to fail. Here lay much of the reason for the internal disorder of the ensuing decades. Eventually rival military leaders arose and multiplied contending for power. Had precedent been followed, one of them would eventually have eliminated the others and founded a new ruling line. Disunion continued after the fall of the Republic but the most persistent division was not between monarchists and republicans, but between differing degrees of radicalism in the adoption and adaptation of social and political theories from the West. In 1912 Yuan Shi Kai became the new President after deposing his rivals. Once the numerous revolts against his usurpation were ruthlessly suppressed, he dismissed his political opponents from Parliament of which he seemed to have dictatorial control. In 1915, Yuan went a step further and reestablished the monarchy with himself as Emperor. Later that year, rebellions from the south would become too great to quell and Yuan would die before his enemies could force him from office. To make matters worse, foreign affairs were heating up. Extensive loans were made to China from Japan and the Western powers. While much of Europe had its hands tied with WWI, Japan seized its opportunity to make advances on China by imposing a number of secret treaties that gave them significant control over strategic sea ports and railroad lines. By the 1920s communist elements were able to gain appeal by denouncing foreign imperialism and all forms of capitalism. A prolonged civil war was waged between nationalists under Jiang Jeshi and communists under Mao Zedong from the early 30s until after World War II. Although China made several gains in industry and law, little had improved Chinese standard of living in the past hundred years since England first threatened the Chinese way of life.

Why They Failed

China’s problems were partially rooted in their perception of the outside world. Their arrogant view of outsiders made it impossible to learn from them and thus perceive incoming threats. Furthermore, Chinese Emperors made decisions based on superstitions and astrological signs. If natural disasters, such as earthquakes or floods, occurred during an emperor’s reign, it would throw his mandate to rule into question. When, Zhu Di probably had Chinese colonies in America, China’s potential world dominance was suspended due to the fact a lightning bolt struck the Forbidden City, burning the palace to the ground. Zhu Di, as well as the rest of China, interpreted this occurrence as a sign from heaven that the advanced exploration ships around the world had to be halted. All written accounts from the explorers, the Junk ships, and blueprints for engineering them were burned or destroyed as society reverted back to traditional Confucian customs to appease heaven. Throughout the 19th century, the Qing Dynasty failed to produce any charismatic leaders. Instead, most of the state power rested in the hands of aristocratic scholars, or literati.  The elites, whether they were the traditional elites of the literati or the new elites of the merchants, were conservative and concerned with protecting their wealth and economic interests. In the later imperial era of China, the literati had resisted efforts by the state to rationalize fiscal administration for extracting greater revenues from private sources. This elite class, as well as all who benefited from the old system, stood in the way of change. Unlike Japan, China’s scholar-official class was recruited through an educational system which stifled original thought and which bred adherence to the status quo.

In the 1870s one hundred and twenty youths were dispatched to America to be educated at the expense of their government. Conservative alarm at the rapidity of their Americanization terminated the educational mission before more than a few had completed their preparation. On their return to China, the boys were looked at askance for their Western equipment in spite of their achievements in helping their native land acquire Western appliances. Railway construction and telegraph lines were achieved in the north; yet, until 1894 life went on much as it had before the first Opium war with the West. The structure of government and the educational and examination system, which supported it, were unaltered.

It was only an occasional far-sighted Chinese who perceived that whether they liked it or not, their fellow countrymen must learn from the west if they were to preserve their independence and the position of their Empire as a great power. Since most officials had a stake in the old order, they clung to it and viewed with alarm proposals for modifications, for these might break their power. Reformers included many individuals too numerous to single out for mention. They had no one recognized leader nor were they organized. They were moreover a small minority with the weight of tradition against them. Reform was not going to come from the leadership of China either. The last Emperors of China, though some were intelligent, had no direct knowledge of the world outside their palace walls. Empress Dowager (1835-1908) was blind to the significance of the forces in the Western world which were impinging upon China. She despised Westerners and all things foreign. The empress annulled most of the reform edicts and she even had some of the reformers executed. Many reformers took refuge abroad. Another extreme reaction to compromise with the West was the Boxer Rebellion. The movement was anti-foreign and was an attempt to purge the realm of Westerners and Western influence. Rather than learn from the Europeans and beat them at their own game, the Chinese only emboldened their conservatism and looked to their ancestors for guidance.   

What We Can Learn

Similar to us today, China’s fate was not sealed after the first arrival of danger. The first encounter with the British demonstrated that the Chinese needed to adopt radical changes to prevent further threats to their society. There were obvious signs that they lagged far behind their Western counterparts and needed to adopt radical changes. Had there been wiser and stronger leadership at the top, China might conceivably have been transformed by peaceful processes into a constitutional monarchy. Unfortunately for the Chinese, they looked to old ideas and solutions within their existing Confucian system for how to save themselves. The blame does not rest entirely with the Qing authority, but on their society as a whole. Even after the monarchy abdicated, the precedent of civil war at the fall of a dynasty was confirmed with rival aspirants for power fighting one another. Although our current global society differs greatly from the Qing Dynasty, we share similar roadblocks to needed change and reform. In particular, America’s capitalist dogma of endless consumption can never be seriously questioned in a presidential campaign or major news forum. Although the world’s consumer culture is unsustainable, our current capitalist system prevents the very changes necessary for reform to take place. Within a shockingly short length of time, the 14 years since the beginning of our century have witnessed senseless wars, preventable environmental catastrophes, and the indisputable arrival of climate change. The problems lie much deeper than simple government regulations. They are systemic. For corporations to exist, they must externalize cost and risk to the general public. Many cut corners and fail environmental safety regulations (during those times when they are properly regulated). The results have been the Fukashima disaster in the Pacific and the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, just to name a few, and yet none of these disasters are enough to spark serious change—change necessary for the billions to survive the future. Much like the elite members of Qing’s society, the powerful 1% today have the most stake in our current system. A simple way of putting it is our corporate oligarchy today profits from disaster, scarcity of resources (whether real or artificial), and war; and will do all they can to prevent meaningful democracy and green technology from challenging their system. Solutions and efficiency in technology, such as the electric car, have been deliberately destroyed by the very companies they threaten. A good documentary on this subject is Who Killed the Electric Car? Additionally, much like the Chinese, we often look to our own current system for solutions where none will exist. We try electing new Presidents who promise change and yet they inevitably behave like Yuan Shi Kai as soon as they take the reigns of power.

As I have shown, we are on a collision course with certain disaster. It took the Chinese over a hundred years and millions dead for their society to finally be reborn from the chaos, only to face the same challenges we all must face together. Unless serious changes occur to our current political, economic, and cultural structure all the signs show we are headed for certain doom. We cannot hope to change our leadership unless we change ourselves. If we are to survive on this planet for another hundred years, our approach needs to be revolutionary, not apathetic; creative, not dogmatic; scientific, not superstitious; and sustainable, not exploitive. This will only take place when we learn from our history.