(18d) Battle between different coloured people

Current situation

The troubles in Ferguson show something is seriously wrong. Again a black unarmed man was killed by a white policeman. Who was to blame, I can't say but the testimony of the policeman who killed him seems to indicate he was afraid of the black man (with or without reason, I can't say). But what he says already indicates something is seriously wrong when indeed white people feel threatened by black people (men). Although the white policeman who killed (by accident, out of fear?) will not be prosecuted, we cannot be sure that the family will not face an enquiry while any possible prosecution for expressing their anger may cause the gunpowder to explode. And this was not the first and probably not the last dead black man. Also in NY a black man was killed by mainly white policemen for what seems is a major crime: selling cigarettes on the streets and as a consequence new violence erupted across the USA. If police, each time someone argues with them (without the use of violence) have to restrain people by holding their neck (something outlawed in NY and only for this it should be investigated) then we can be sure that many more black (and later other) people will die. Read books by e.g. James Baldwin or this article by a black man who only recently moved to the US to understand why many black people are angry towards white people because of their treatment by some white people (and their institutions) to understand why many white people fear black people (a circle). Indeed, without change we can still expect very hot times to come that may test our (white) willingness to understand the anger of black people towards white people and thus our ability to become friends again. Certainly the disappointment that little changed after a black man became president is fuelling an anger because it seems nothing can change the system.

And that something is seriously wrong is also obvious in this article by a black man who describes how his white brother gave him confidence during his childhood to become a proud young black man but how later his brother as a white policeman killed a black man. As a consequence, the black man now has difficulties identifying his brother as a good white guy but instead sees him as a white policeman who sometimes has to kill black people (while maybe the brother became a policeman in the hope he could change the police for the better). Still, to prevent him from maybe having to kill another black man in future, the white brother may have to resign as a policeman and concentrate on doing something else to serve the community. Indeed, sometimes we need to step down to prevent us from doing evil. As the article shows, this racial conflict can destroy families and, as the troubles in Ferguson, NY and elsewhere show, even whole communities.

But also six years of wrong behaviour and constant harassment by white (and some black) politicians towards their black president has polarised society to such an extend that it becomes dangerous (although those powerful ones hate poor people in general). Indeed, tensions increase over the refusal by some white supremacists to cooperate on anything in Congress while people start blaming one man (i.e. the president) for the inactions (and now that both Houses are in the hands of the GOP, people may blame him even more if he uses his veto to block laws that favour mainly the rich although it is also possible ordinary people will understand him and vote again for a Democrat during the presidential elections). These tensions may increase to such an extend that black anger may one day (verbally) turn against white people in general for not understanding the difficulties black people face in achieving things while coloured racists will be more than happy to attack white people. Indeed, HOPE for CHANGE in 2008 when a black man was elected to become president (and also many white people voted for him) changed into ANGER as any change for the better is refused by a small part of powerful racists. And although many white people may understand the anger of many black people (quite some white people join the protests), if the fighting goes on for too long than even tolerant white people may turn against coloured people out of anger because their property was damaged or of fear because they were attacked and may search protection with white supremacists who would not mind fighting against coloured people (and later others). Indeed, evil always wins if it is not stopped early enough as it forces people to behave in a way they may not like when faced with a certain situation. As this article shows (of which I hope the terrible dream at the start will not be the future but I fear it may be), anger is growing as indeed it is unbelievable that many coloured people in our societies still have fewer chances. And that white and black people are treated differently shows the example in his article (but other examples can be read in the other articles). Therefore, white people should recognise that some white people are guilty of blocking progress for certain people (including the president) because of their skin colour and thus should speak against it because the longer we wait, the greater the anger and the more difficult it will become to control it. The irony may be that a black president may have to employ the army against mainly black protesters if anger continues to spread.

And thus, when trust between communities is very low because people have the feeling that too many black people are killed by a system that doesn't do enough to find a solution and even seems to accept the violence exists, then legislation needs to be introduced to bring back trust although it will not immediately remove the anger. But if people don't trust the police or grand juries any longer than even freeing officers who killed dangerous individuals in a standoff will cause anger. Indeed, when almost everyone in police departments are white in a city with mainly black inhabitants, then it is also in the interest of the police that people trust them by demanding more black policemen in their police force (unless a racist police corps wants a confrontation). Equally, more black judges and mixed juries in mixed societies will result in more trust in the justice system as it will reflect those societies better (while racists prefer an unequal system). Sometimes even higher hierarchies (as high as the UN) need to intervene by writing reports to analyse and suggest solutions.

Some suggestions for actions that may result in a more equal society

Therefore Mr President Obama, doing nothing is no option and thus propose legislation that enforces more equality and let it be voted in Congress so members of Congress will have to publicly choose side and show to society where they really stand for. The legislation should force government departments to reflect societies as they should represent everyone. To do this, sometimes enforced favouritism is necessary to protect the weak although the corrective system should try to avoid that good candidates loose out to bad ones. And while government departments should be a reflection of society as they should be neutral, this should not completely apply to the private sector because people can decide not to buy from certain companies so those companies will make less profits while people can start their own business (but not their own government) and do it better; this would also stimulate small entrepreneurship. But if certain companies want to remain private companies such as banks and insurance companies, then they should be forced to treat everyone equal as everyone should be able to lend money or get insurance and thus they should only study the situation of a person such as a business plan, not the skin colour. Therefore, I think quota should be introduced in government departments but mainly for the top levels. Indeed, ambitious white, black or oriental people in general want the best people, whatever the colour. Today, there are already coloured people in high position in our societies because white people allow them although often on condition they remain quiet. A quota will ensure coloured people are employed at higher positions and as a consequence they have greater authority and thus can demand without fear of being fired that more people with another skin colour work in the company. Thus, as a person with power, they can demand a more equal company (although some people don't defend their own kind and may even oppose them out of fear of competition). Of course, in a white or black or oriental society, departments will be mainly respectively white, black or oriental. However, in case there are troubles between different groups, rules should be used that allow a neutral investigation. Some suggestions:

  • Introduce quota that force police departments to employ people in top positions that reflect society and thus many will have to employ bosses of all colours, making it more difficult to claim police are racist.
  • Ensure that top positions at justice departments reflect society. In addition, juries should also reflect all layers of society and thus in a mixed society juries should also be mixed to reflect that society. However, during racial tensions, the composition should be different. If only one judge is present, he/she should be of an independent race (e.g. an oriental judge when there is a conflict between black and white people). Better still would be the presence of three judges, i.e. a black, white and oriental judge as this would also stimulate people of different colours to work together. Equally, then juries should be 1/3 white, 1/3 black and 1/3 oriental and maybe even come from outside to determine the murder was not due to racist motives. (Imagine when in a certain society most people are of a certain colour and a person of another colour is murdered, then every 'race' should determine whether the killing is not due to racism in that society while a jury that reflects that society will automatically be the colour of the murderer and thus a racist society will protect the murderer.)
  • Also the prosecutor should always be considered as neutral. But certainly in these sensitive racial cases people should be able to trust the person and thus they may be appointed by a higher order such as the Federal Justice Department (that employs people of different colours) and come from outside so they can be considered as really independent and not being influenced by local policies.
  • Governments themselves should also try to be a mixture of people that reflect society although of course, as here people are elected, they should represent the decision of voters, and not necessary of society (e.g. if people of a certain group decide not to vote than they will have few representatives in Parliament and thus should not complain).

In addition, for government jobs, CVs from people for normal jobs should be submitted anonymously (thus without name, sex and age) so applicants will be judged for their qualities and not on knowledge about how the person may look like. Doing so, it is more likely the best will be selected for the interview during which indeed still some personal preference may play although when a few interviewers are present than even the preferences of the interviewers become neglectable, certainly when also interviewers represent all sections of society as they will demand the best person is chosen. And when private companies notice this is a better system to find the best persons to employ, they too will start using it without being forced to do. Still, when it becomes clear that in a certain society there is a discrepancy between the composition of the society and the workforce, then it should be possible to have corrective measures such as job offers exclusively for the group that is underrepresented to increase their presence, maybe first at a lower level so they can learn the job before having exams that allows them to progress to a higher position. If few candidates appear for those jobs then this indicates few people may be interested but equally there may be other reasons and thus it should be investigated (maybe the people don't like that job or they think they have little chance to progress, two different point of view that need different solutions because you don't want to employ people who dislike a job versus take actions so people know everyone has a similar chance to progress). In the end, departments should reflect as much as possible society although this may not always be possible as people need certain skills to do the job.

I suggested some solutions but President Obama can already show an example by employing lawyers (1/3 white, 1/3 black and 1/3 oriental) who suggest some urgent, logical and more worked-out solutions than mine while more specific (simple) legislation can follow later. These he can present to Congress.

Some members of Congress will support this while others not, claiming only the best should be taken. But this argument can't be accepted when the refusal of societies to change voluntarily and thus refusing to accept that also other groups in society have good people creates life-threatening emergencies. Indeed, every 'race' has very talented people while the majority are less talented, often because they had fewer chances. The above system will force society to help the less advanced so they too can progress. When government departments are forced to reflect society, thus also people from poorer parts of society, then governments are forced to help the less advanced while the less advanced, knowing they will have a fairer chance in life, will be more willing to learn and thus that part of society will advance quicker. Some of our intelligence is indeed genetically determined but most is due to education and getting a chance in society and thus people should get equal chances to advance. In addition, when different levels of experience and intelligence are represented, then the needs of everyone has to be taken more into account as the 'clever ones' are forced to educate the others but also think twice about how to introduce changes in such a way that all people understand them. It also forces departments to be as open as possible so they explain very well their intentions to society. Finally, everyone who works hard will be able 'to climb the ladder' due to years of experience.

And thus, this system of CVs will more likely select the best people for jobs, independent from colour, sex or even age although corrective measures are possible while quota for higher hierarchy (who are often chosen) will be useful to be sure people in power demand everyone gets equal chances at lower positions. This also forces society to educate every part of society to be able to employ the best persons of each colour for the jobs. Indeed, if in a society the education for a certain population (i.e. black people) is less good than the quota will still ensure that also black people have a high position with power of which many will demand better education for black people so more black people can be employed. However, schools can't teach for individual jobs and thus also society has a duty to educate. And thus, (black) bosses may demand that lesser-skilled (black) people are employed and receive training at the job. Without the quota, government departments may fire people who are too demanding and thus people are more likely to keep silent on inequality. Therefore, civil servants should have a permanent job so their experience increases over time while they don't have to fear to speak out. However, jobs for higher hierarchies are better only for a certain number of years to prevent bosses become corrupt as they are able to enforce their own ideas. Of course, people can still loose their work if they don't do their job well.

This doesn't mean white people should be replaced with coloured people as that will only increase troubles. Indeed, when too many people with many years of experience have to go, they can't educate the newly employed people and thus services will go down. But troubles will mainly increase because many (white) people who would loose their job will also become angry and blame others for taking their job. It means (temporarily) increase funding so more (diverse) people can be employed (thus the opposite of what is now happening in many countries). When Congress refuses to fund this (again, politicians will have to show their real face so anger can be directed), then the above bullet points will still ensure there is more justice as it will no longer be possible that a majority of white people speak justice in a conflict between white and black people.

But, also the paranoia of fear for people with weapons develops in a country where people are allowed to carry weapons on the streets and thus as a result even children carrying toy guns can be killed because officers are not sure whether it is real. Indeed, in such a society parents should explain the toy weapon should be clearly marked until one day ... . Therefore, the president should repeat gun laws should be stricter and there should be less weapons although the accidents between unarmed people and police may convince others to start carrying weapons to protect themselves from police, thus increasing the possibility of future accidents and thus violence.

More powers to the 'Fourth Power'

But not only the above systems of specialists (police and justice and civil servants (similar for schools, financial departments, ...)) need to reform, also the Fourth Power (i.e. the people's power) needs to be stronger although it seems this sort of power was already used in Ferguson and NY via a so-called Grand Jury to determine whether the policeman should be judged (I think that, if people are killed, the case should be presented in front of a judge with jury (maybe a special court with normal judges and juries to speed the judgement) where police can be found guilty or not.

For me, the Fourth Power are control agencies that consists of ordinary people as well as experts as law and order (justice and police) concern everyone and that allows people to trust the systems. Already some people power exists known as 'jury' during trials (and thus lawyers are forced to explain cases as good as possible so people understand it and can speak justice. Today many want to stop these juries as it exposes some major errors to the public (e.g. murderers can be released after errors in procedures while people expect murderers are sentenced and errors are fixed)). The juries are discussed above in the second bullet point but also Offices should be installed that control the working of law and order departments and can investigate the fairness of trials after complains. I think these Offices should include (non-acting and thus independent) experts as they understand better the rules and evidence and thus can explain them to the others (and thus not a prosecutor who may be biased and influence the Members). Thus, these Offices will force law and order departments to work correctly within the law (with penalties if they behave incorrectly). Then people will no longer be able to claim things are settle behind closed doors as everyone should be able to submit their candidature during elections to serve in these Offices (for a limited period of time such as 2 times 4 years (to prevent people become settled) while there should be elections to replace a part of the Members every 2 years to ensure continuity so that newly elected Members can learn from older Members. During their period in Office, all Members should be paid the same amount as civil servants and Members can only sit in one Office while it is impossible to move from one Office to another before one period is over. The Offices should each year report to Parliament, including with suggestions to improve the working of departments if necessary.

As already mentioned, these Offices should be a mixture of experts and ordinary people but also represent their society (including colours, sex, age and social status although, if only people of a certain colour live in a town or region, only people of that skin colour need to sit in the local Office so they reflect that society while a higher Office should reflect people living in a larger area. Further, to achieve this and allow everyone can sit in them, the composition should also be based upon the average wages (+- 10%) in the region so that both ordinary, poor and wealthy people will be represented. To achieve this, people who are interested have to declare their wages, sex, skin colour and age and a computer algorithm can chose people so the composition of the Office reflects as much as possible society. If too many rich (thus powerful) people are in those Offices, then this will result in an average wage that is above that for society and thus shows more other people need to be involved. Of course, it is possible that some people may have low wages while they are very rich but this should be investigated before being accepted (remember, the composition is based upon wages (including out of investments), not savings but it is always possible someone inherited a large sum of money). People in these Offices are thus not elected by people but it is more important they reflect society. Only Members of Parliament should be elected by people and reflect the will of society, not its composition while Offices should check whether the laws of society are correctly followed, for everyone and report abuses.

In this system, in a mainly black community a white policeman may still have shot a black man, but the officer would have been part of a force in which the majority are black officers. The Grand Jury would not be involved as deaths will be automatically investigated and the judges would not have been mainly white but either one oriental but even better three persons representing each race while the jury during the trial would have equal numbers of each colour and sex. Then people would accept more easily a non-guilty verdict for the policeman or he/she would be sentenced if considered guilty for improper use of violence.

Concluding remarks

But President Obama should do something. Indeed, the president can accept his own suffering of having to fight some white people in Congress but should do more about tackling inequality for others. Otherwise, why did he become the first black president? Because not only white people start saying the president is too weak to achieve anything, but also black people are starting to become disillusioned or worse, even angry with their black president for not defending them against powerful white and some coloured people and that is dangerous. Indeed, even my support for the president is starting to go down due to his inactions in these cases. How can he try to excuse a system that seems to fail all black people while he himself feels continuously how it works against him? Try something to change the system. It doesn't mind if the attempt fails but people will notice you did your best but others stopped it. Then anger is allowed to explode if more people die. But do nothing and coloured (and some white) people will be angry because you didn't do anything to defend the weak and so there will be no-one to defend you when you may need the help of people.

Still, also the white Vice-president should speak out by telling people that it is unacceptable that in a city with a large majority of coloured people, the majority of police and judges are white. It is indeed easier for a white politician to say police forces should reflect society than for a black person to say this because then people can claim he simply wants to advance his own race. White people took black people to America to work for them as slaves and thus white people have the obligation to defend black people against further abuses by some white racists. Because, the last part of the film about Amistad summarises it well. To prevent battles, we sometimes need to accept that people have to find solutions that result in less tensions, even when this means loosing power to advance others. If we don't accept this, blood can be the consequence. At least the mayor of NY, a white father of a coloured son, speaks out as he understands the situation. And accidents can happen but good people will try to implement changes to improve the situation (such as camera's for more transparency) but this can only work if the system is no longer considered bias.

And this is not only in the USA, also Europe and other places don't escape racism and some governments even actively encourage it by indoctrinating people each day by telling them that foreigners are to blame for all troubles. How can this ever result in a peaceful society if people start to believe this? And thus also elsewhere this (or similar) system may be useful although each society is different and thus needs local adjustments.

Finally, one day the above rules can be abolished when societies have become equal for everyone. The last place to abolish these rules will be at the highest hierarchy (Federal United Nations) because it needs to be sure that the top (of the three Powers) represent people from all societies who demand people in every society are treated correctly or the unequal society will be ignored. But, if a very powerful society would force its own people at the top of the three Powers or abuse the system to remain in power, then people should resist this power and leave the area of the power to demonstrate they don't want to be part of it. And when these rules are no longer needed, then societies may have perfect laws and can be governed by computers (because why need a Parliament and government to change perfect laws?) so people can enjoy life. But because some groups are so disadvanced that it may take a long time to get to our level while even the societies at the higher levels still need to improve (or the above rules would not be necessary to create a fairer society), this may take a few more generations. And our level doesn't mean replacing huts with stone houses, it means being able to combat illnesses, use renewable energy sources and live peacefully and respectful with other people but also with nature.


Any suggestions to improve the above are welcome to work on a better and more equal society because it is not always easy to write this down all by myself.


Popular posts from this blog

Brexit, refugee crisis and the EU

(7i) Return to (travel) business in times of a virus

(20b) Coronavirus statistics: how to present data about cases and mortality