Justice in the 21st Century: Part 4 of 4 - Crises vs Progress

By Sosamma Samuel-Burnett, J.D.

Founder/President, G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice

2020 has been a really difficult year, perhaps one of the most difficult with overlapping global tensions, challenges, and crises in political, social, and economic sectors.  In previous years we faced human and natural disasters, but now we face crises in ways that we have not experienced before.  COVID-19, racial conflicts, and partisan political divides have been the most prominent of our crises in 2020.  But COVID-19 was not our first global health pandemic; recent racial violence is not the first instance of racial conflict; and the political divisions that our country and world presently face are also not the first of their kind.  What distinguishes these crises in 2020 though is the nature of how these crises intersect and how society responded to these intersected crises.  It is not that they are in and of themselves more difficult situations than before,  rather it is that these crises presented distinctive dynamics for our present era that are creating societal changes.  These crises and their dynamics are defining 2020 and may be redefining our needs and ideas of justice for the 21st century.

So here we are in 2020, in the 21st century, and issues of political division, racial conflict, and global health pandemics have continued and escalated.   We had hoped that the lessons from years of political issues, the strife of the civil rights era, and the losses sustained during previous pandemics would teach us and advance our ability to respond them  in this new century.  However these “plagues” persist, and what’s more, they are taking on complexities that are presenting all new issues that are outgrowths of the original crises.

Further, America, and perhaps the world, has entered the 21st century not fully equipped to handle 21st century crises that have expanded in scale and impact. We have faced earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, famine, persecution, violence, terrorism, war in this 21st century, but we have been ill prepared for neither the direct impact of each of these crises nor  the cumulative impact of each successive crisis.  We don’t have just the crisis itself but the aftershocks – responses and impacts that are not always foreseeable nor intended.  It’s like being awash in the ocean – we may be able to brace the first wave or two, but after several keep hitting, we seem to lose our bearing and our ability to stay above water, and eventually we feel like we are in whirlpool – not quite sure which direction we are going.

While we cannot always predict or control a particular crisis, how we respond to any crisis has as much to do with our actions prior to the crises as it does with what we do during and after the crises.   Who we are as people, as a country, as a civilization and how we collectively respond to crises has a bearing on whether we sink or swim in the midst of cumulative crises.  Our religious perspective, our political positions, our socioeconomic status, our race/ethnicity/gender/age, etc. all factor into our collective approach and resilience to crises.  But while our individual responses may vary greatly based on our personal status and capacities, our collective responses are intertwined with the societal contexts that surround the crises.  Sometimes the response itself is a crisis to such a degree that we may not know where the one crisis started and where the other begins.  As a result, managing crises in our present context can create as much tension or conflict as the initial crises.  We are either not responding enough or hyper-responding – in either case, not correlating the scale of the crises with the response.

We need to understand that some of our current challenges with crises are related to some key characteristics of our country and our world today.  These characteristics weigh on how we see and address challenges of any kind, let alone global crises:

1)     Globalization – We live in a global world.  Many of us in the U.S. tend to think “America” in the midst of crises.  Buy American. Support American. Be American.  While we do want to help and support our own country and people, we have to realize that in a global economy and ecosystem, it is not clear what companies and policies truly benefit Americans.  We have Americans that work in various parts of our world and many international companies that employ Americans here.  Similarly when we are supporting economic empowerment in other regions, we are also providing economic opportunities for our own communities in tangible work, innovation, etc. Similarly, how we approach foreign policy can also have a return impact on our own domestic policy. Globalization connects and integrates our national interests with global interests. 

2)     Underlying political/economic/social disparities:  At the heart of all of our political, economic, and social divides in the U.S. are underlying disparities. And those disparities are not simple to understand or address.  Each country, and particularly America, is defined by a culture that is in turn defined by subcultures based on our context and experiences.  Varying contexts and experiences within a country can vary how sectors view that culture.  As such, the urban version of America is quite different than the rural version.  The America of the working classes is distinct from the America of the wealthier classes.   And the America of people of color varies considerably from other racial groups. Each of these contexts creates disparities and affects our perspectives about our nation and our globe.  There are also intersections between these contexts that create greater disparities and complexities.  For example, since most Americans are White, the poor population in this country is mostly White.  However, a disproportionate number of the poor are people of color.  At the intersection of race and poverty are some key distinctions that make addressing either race and poverty more difficult, and requiring greater awareness and intentionality to address.  Consider the disparities and intersections that exist in places like Los Angeles, Ferguson, and Minneapolis and then consider the issues they have experienced in recent years and months.  These recent concerns are rooted in the ongoing and underlying political, economic, and social disparities between various segments of the population.  

3)     Systemic flaws increased by societal flaws:  Many point to institutional “systems” such as our political, criminal justice, or education systems for the flaws in our society.  Certainly there are many systems worldwide that are fundamentally flawed.  But most of the flaws within these systems, particularly in the US system stem from two sources – historic disparities and present societal flaws. The fact that these two issues have not been adequately addressed makes addressing disparities difficult if not impossible.  For example, some would argue that racism is embedded in our US system.  However, many if not most of the aspects of racial discrimination have been removed in the structures and laws of our US system.  But where we have a break down is the application of the system.  In other words, even if the system is nondiscriminatory, it can function in a discriminatory way.  Police brutality highlights this issue.  Police are a necessary part of our society that is given the responsibility of helping maintain public peace and order.  Police systems and policies are not advocating brutality. But there are flaws in the context of screening, training, and enforcement of officers, which means that the police may not be able to effectively prevent brutality if a particular officer does that.   The flaw in the implementation of the system is significantly increased by the flaw in the person.  The personal flaw was likely developed and exacerbated by the societal flaws of violence and racism that are promoted in families, communities, and media.  While there are flaws in the police system, it is not the flawed system that breeds police brutality.  It is the flaws in the people and their implementation of the systems that cause these negative results.  Even a perfect system would be marred by a flawed society.  

4)     Intolerance of disagreement:  Expression of our views has become a central part of the way many engage in our society, and especially online.  Media and social media are tools for expressing our views on politics, economics, society, etc. However, they are often misused or abused.  Online expression is both indirect and direct and as such emboldens many to speak what they want, when they want, and to whomever they want in ways that would not be acceptable in face-to-face communications.  These online expressions often do not benefit dialogue, exchange, edification, or learning.  Most often these online expressed are used to wield a certain power of our opinions and views – expression is then perceived as the highest level of significance. But there is very little significance to our expression if we don’t allow people to disagree or to evaluate the merit of our expression.  So expression is no longer about convincing or influencing but of insulting and tearing down.  If we don’t feel heard, we feel emboldened to make someone hear us and see us…and more so, to agree with us.  At that point, we are no longer making a point or progress; we are simply imposing an intolerance to disagreement.

The partisan divides in our country are of particular concern for this intolerance.  The idea that if someone doesn’t agree with a particular partisan position, then they are our enemy, is not only wrong thinking, it’s just wrong. We have different parties in our country so that we have different ways to represent our opinions and vehicles to align to our views.  Someone in another party will align with someone else’s views.  Neither party has it completely right, or completely wrong.  But when we convince ourselves that someone from another party is completely wrong, we are preventing ourselves from learning from the other “half” of our country and world, and preventing them learning from us.

5)     News promoting panic and discord:  News was once “news” – a source of information on what is happening in the world.  Especially in the context of crises, the news can be helpful in guiding people and providing information resources.  But news, or more precisely news media, has become a source of panic and discord.  Many news sources are biased and do not present the news fairly or evenly.  And most news sources use crises as way to generate greater viewership.  Certainly there are news professionals dedicated to sharing the real news – but many are enveloped in a media context that doesn’t fully allow accurate information.  That is a disservice to the community in that it can exaggerate or minimize crises and the best ways to respond.  Thus, we over or under respond to what is happening around us.  Either we become so saturated that we can’t seem to respond to a crises, or we become so panicked that we think the crises is the only significant issue before us.   Neither is a helpful approach t in the context of managing crises.  

6)     Lawlessness:  Violence and crimes of many forms are rampant in many parts of our world.  And where there are disparities and crises, violence and crimes increase.  In recent months, certain violence and crimes have suggested a degree of lawlessness in many places in our world.  And in some contexts, that lawlessness has been viewed as acceptable to confront various issues.  But that is a highly problematic approach to addressing injustice.  Violence not only destroys lives, but causes destruction of property, livelihoods, and communities. Rampant violence and criminal activity destroy the rule of law.  The idea of rule of law is that we are all bound by laws and standards no matter who we are and no matter what our circumstances.  Laws are meant to protect both our rights and our well-being.  Rights to free speech, expression, assembly, etc. are protected by law.  But when these freedoms exceed the bounds of law and cause harm to individual and community well-being – such as arson and looting -- they are no longer covered by the laws and are subject to other laws that protect other people.  As soon as we break laws, then we break down how we are supposed to function as a civil society.  The exception, of course, is when the laws themselves are unjust on their face or in their application.  In the 21st century we have fewer and fewer unjust laws on their face, but we have more and more unjust application and consequences.  

7)     Increasing harm and exploitation but decreasing concern: Sadly, as crises rise, so too does harm and exploitation.  Not only do we have issues of violence and crime that is apparent to all, but we have extensive abuse that is often not seen or heard.   Domestic violence, rape, sexual exploitation, human trafficking, slavery and forced labor – all are significant issues in our society and increase significantly when our society is under the stress and strains of crises.  But ironically as these increase, we become less engaged in our concern for these abuses.  The crises themselves overwhelm us or we choose not to engage in order to focus on our personal circumstances rather than those of others.  As a result more people are abused in the context of crises with less concern from those that could otherwise help.  

8)     Godlessness: I am a Christian.  But I don’t need to be a Christian to recognize that the Christian faith, as well as other faiths, has a significant role in society – both for good and for bad.  Most of the civil and human rights advances that we have are connected to the moral principles of Christianity or stemming from people of various faith communities.  Consider any society that didn’t have Christianity – today or in history-- and compare that to the conditions under Christian society.  Pagan societies have always been harsher, crueler, and more unjust.  Having said that, in the name of Christianity, many have also caused destruction – consider the Crusades or imperialism more generally.  However, in those cases, it was not Christianity but the abuse of it that led to those results.  In those instances, God was no longer the center of faith, but rather reference to God was used to gain power.  That is not much different today.  As we become increasingly Godless, we have also become increasingly infatuated with power – in the form of money, status, and leisure.  The more we have the more we can do and say what we want.  That notion that we can do whatever we want is a characteristic of Godlessness. We replace God with ourselves. 

With the backdrop of these characteristics, we have to question whether our current approaches to addressing crises are working for the good of our country or world.  Are we making any progress on major national and global crises? Have any of the political, economic, and social positions we vehemently defend actually advanced our current society?  Have any of the violence and lawlessness addressed racism or issues of the most vulnerable? Have we become more just without God?

At present, there are no “clear” answers because no one is clear on what the problem is.  Even justice has become problematic – who’s justice and for what? We are fighting unknown enemies (literally and figuratively) in unknown territories (literally and figuratively) using an outdated game plan (literally and figuratively).  

But in asking these questions, we may come to the conclusion that we are making the mistake of trying to employ 20th century approaches to our 21st century crises.  The approaches that were tried in previous eras did not protect us from our current characteristics nor from continued crises in our present era.

In the 21st century, we need to realize that there is no singular answer, no singular party, and no singular sector that make things right. Progress takes time and intentionality across many sectors and approaches.  We need a collective and focused effort from everyone in each major arena – political, economic, and social – to effectively respond to crises:  

1)     Political:  Government’s primary responsibility is to protect the people and provide for the general welfare.  That does not mean that we should seek government control or provision of all things.  Protection is from foreign and domestic enemies that could do harm to our people and way of life. General welfare is not the same as a welfare system, but there are many instances when the government needs to provide support, particularly in crises.  More importantly, the government needs to remove impediments to our community’s welfare – allowing people to be educated, work, and advance without stigma or hurdles.   

These concerns are not Left or Right issues – they are collective issues. Neither political party has all the answers or all the correct approaches.  But together they can bring various considerations to light that can help ensure both protection and provision.   So, it is not which presidential candidate or party that makes the difference.  Rather, it is how both parties work with each other, with whoever is elected President, and with the people for common purposes that benefit the community, especially in the context of crises.  Each political segment can then bring varying perspective to problems, while being dedicated to solving the problems together.

2)     Economic:  Because of the range of disparities in our country and the intensity of economic greed, there are some who have been convinced that we should shift to an economic and political system that could potentially have government making decisions on distribution and redistribution of resources to ensure equality and fairness.  But all one needs to do is look at the examples of 20th century socialism in various parts of the world, to know that the idea of government making those decisions only works in theory.  The flaws in human nature and power structures have made it not possible for governments to actually function in a way that fairly distributes or redistributes anything for all.  The answer to disparities therefore is not about having government provide all distribution and redistribution of resources, but rather focusing individual and community efforts on investing and reinvesting in opportunities for economic empowerment and sustainability for all.  

Especially in the midst of crises, fewer economic opportunities in either urban centers or rural areas, results in increasing societal disparities in education and employment, that in turn results in higher levels of poverty and the diseases of poverty including poor physical and mental health, drugs/alcohol, and crimes/violence.  Economic concerns are directly intertwined with societal concerns.  So we cannot dismiss individual and community economic concerns even in the context of public health or other concerns.  

3)     Social:  We need to shift our societal focus from social media to social good.  There comes a point when we have to put down our megaphones – literal or figurative or online.  We need to step back and recognize that we have many voices that need to be heard, and many faces that need to be seen.  Rather than allowing media to sensationalize or social media to turn issues and people into memes, we need to use our media platforms to provide the voiceless an opportunity to share their concerns.  And these platforms can also be a way for those with a voice to learn more about these concerns and to work together with the vulnerable in addressing the concerns.

But to address concerns, we also need to recognize various views and ideas may be expressed, but not all have the same levels of validity or effectiveness.  Some are better or worse in various contexts.   We have to as a society use our faith and morality to discern the collective good and then move toward decisions and changes that pursue what is good, especially through the promotion of civil and human rights.  That kind of decision-making and change moves beyond viewpoints and necessarily takes concerted steps now and in the longer-term toward social progress.  

In this convoluted time, I want to challenge our national and global society to consider these issues and crises from new vantage points – perhaps shifting our paradigm of crises and crisis responses.  We could try to deconstruct these 21st century crises with 21st century approaches and perspectives.  They may not be altogether new ideas but we could employ them in with some new intentionality that could result in greater progress than we have previously experienced.  They may not solve the issues completely, but they may advance us as a people by upholding human rights for all.  When we shift our approaches from politics to sound policy, from economic greed to economic opportunity, personal interest to community good, we can then focus our energies in the 21st century to not only addressing crises but creating true progress for individuals and communities, and true justice worldwide.

Justice in the 21st Century: Part 3 of 4: Revolution vs. Reconciliation

By Sosamma Samuel-Burnett, J.D.

Founder/President, G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice

As we look on the horizon of the 21st century, we can see two paths – one that leads to revolution and one that leads to reconciliation.  The question of which direction we go depends in large part on what kind of world we are choosing to create or recreate for our future. But that future and our chosen path are also shaped by lessons we may have learned from our past.  When we look on that horizon and consider two of our most significant historical and present evils, racism and slavery, we also have to determine which direction we should go, informed by history and present.  Do we fight racism and slavery today through revolution or through reconciliation? 

Revolution is a complex topic and direction.  Revolution means that we are overthrowing “what is” in the hopes of what might be better.  If we feel that what we presently have in political, economic, or social structures and systems are unjust, ineffective, or both, we may seek to tear down those structures and systems that we consider as unjust or ineffective.  Revolution generally provides a process to do that, to tear down or break away from what is.  But it doesn’t usually provide a designated outcome, for that matter something better. The outcome generally is an outgrowth of whatever remains once the revolution is done.  From ashes a phoenix could rise; but often there is no phoenix, just more ashes.  Without something more and intentional, a revolution only overthrows what is, but it does not create what should be. The “more” has to be a concerted effort to formulate structures and systems that are just and effective, or at least better than what was.  But sadly, often that is not the case. 

Consider the result of the American Revolution of 1776 vs. the French Revolution of 1789.  Each of these Revolutions inspired their respective countries, and were decisions based on the unjust nature of the ruling powers in each country.  But in the end, the American Revolution’s outcome -- after much literal and intentional blood, sweat, and tears -- was a constitutional democratic republic.  The French Revolution by contrast resulted in the end of feudalism, but also the end of democracy and the rise of dictatorial leadership, most notably Napoleon.  

Thus, when we consider revolution, we have to remind ourselves that overthrow is not enough. The peculiarity of unjust and ineffective systems is that they tend to replace themselves with more unjust and ineffective systems unless the revolutionaries have an ideal and an intentionality that they are willing to sacrifice and even compromise to get, at least in semblance. The harder work of revolution is not, surprisingly, the revolution or the resulting chaos, but the intentionality that needs to follow to create something new and better.

Reconciliation is no less complex. To reconcile means to put together that which was pulled apart.  In racism and slavery the issue is whether we can actually find the place and space when that pulling apart happened and whether that could actually be put back together again.  In the United States, racial reconciliation may need to go back as far as West Africa where slaves were literally sold by their own people; to Great Britain which established the American colonies to exploit the colonists and slaves for economic and political gain; to the American slave holders and traders who exchanged and treated people as chattel; to today’s leaders and policymakers who utilize modern day methods to oppress people; to businesses and institutions that create barriers for people of color to get an education, find a job, live in a home; to one another and our neighbors who continue discrimination and racism, particularly against Black people who face insecurity, conflict, and violence. The reconciliation that needs to happen is between heritage and legacy, systems and practices, races and races, man and man, woman and woman. Reconciliation would mean that we put together brothers and sisters of all races who should have equal human rights and value that were otherwise prevented by historical and contemporary injustice. But how does such deep and long efforts of reconciliation even begin?  

The starting point for determining whether to choose revolution or reconciliation, and how to begin either, is by first studying and understanding history – not from a politicized lens or for self-serving purposes, but for clarity and information that can breathe wisdom into our decisions.  In determining our path in addressing racism, let’s consider the history of slavery as a reference.

Slavery, bondage, & servitude have been societal phenomenon that started in ancient times and continue today.  It has been part of many if not most cultures, nationalities and religions.  It has been the basis of various forms of disparities, discrimination, and conflict among many peoples worldwide.  In many ways, slavery is a product of civilization. Not that slavery is conceived by or acceptable as part of civilized communities, but that it is an immoral outgrowth of social stratification that often is part of civilization’s structures. That outgrowth is not necessarily politically or socially based, as much as economically rooted and then justified by the culture on that basis, creating related political and social dynamics.  

Dating back as far as 3500 BC to some of the earliest civilizations such as those in Mesopotamia, slavery has been referenced by early writings including the Code of Hammurabi.  Slavery is also referenced in the Bible – particularly with regard to the Hebrew people and their captivity in Babylon and enslavement in Egypt for many centuries. 

In the early Middle Ages, Europe began utilizing slavery more commonly and continued to do so for many centuries that followed. Those slaves included European people and Christians.  But starting in the 1500’s and particularly in the 1600’s, the Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and British engaged in slave trading with West African Kingdoms. However, from the 15th century to the 19th century, many if not most of the European nations began abolishing slavery. 

Great Britain, in particular, has had a long and challenging history of slavery that dates back to the post-Roman era, but reached its height in the Transatlantic Slave Trade of the 1500-1800’s.  It wasn’t until 1805 that slavery was abolished in Britain. Given the vast reach of the British Empire worldwide, that long history of slavery in and by Great Britain has influenced many of the countries that were under its rule, including the colonial United States. 

The history of slavery in the United States dates to the colonial era which began during the British slave trade era.  Ships carrying slaves from West Africa came to the colonies to import and export goods and trade slaves – mostly African and some British.  Slavery increased in commodification as the British Empire grew globally and particularly in the America.  Slavery in America was the central form of labor “necessary” for economic growth, particularly in the South where there were high demands for manual labor for cotton, tobacco and other large scale crops.  Demand for cheap and ample supplies of human labor gave the South and the U.S. in general an unconscionable justification for slavery. 

In 1776 when the colonies waged the Revolutionary War against Great Britain, slavery existed in full force in both regions. And slaves were even employed in the revolutionary battles, only to return to their slave status after the war.  Many of the revolutionary leaders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were slaveholders during and after the Revolutionary War.

In 1787 when America saw the significant weaknesses of its first constitutional structure outlined by the Articles of Incorporation, the Constitutional Convention delegates initially set out to revise those Articles. But after significant debate, deliberation, and compromise, they ended up with a new structure and document, the Constitution of the United States of America.  This document continues to this day as perhaps the most significant political document in human history.  But even with the Constitution’s significance and ideals, slavery was embedded in its structure, still remained in the United States at its ratification, and many of the signatories remained slave holders thereafter. 

The infamous 3/5 compromise in the Constitution is often referenced to signify the devaluing of the slave and of African Americans more generally.  On a technical basis, the focus was less about the value of the person and more about the issue of representation.  The South had many more slaves than other people. If slaves were not counted for representation, the South would be less of a political power in terms of that representation. But if slaves were counted fully, the South would be overrepresented from the perspective of the Northern states. Thus the 3/5 compromise was a way to address that representation issue. While many understand the moral implications of such a compromise, this too was unconscionable but “necessary” justification in that context.   

Four score and seven years later from the founding of the U.S.A, the Civil War was fought starting in 1861.  It is considered the deadliest war in U.S. history – an estimated 750,000 deaths of people from the North and South.  And its also often considered the war to end slavery. But at its core, the Civil War was really about keeping the Union together.  Central issues of the Civil War included the advancement of industry, particularly in the North, versus the furthering of large scale commercial agriculture, particularly in the South.  The Civil War was also about states rights (preferred by the South) vs federal, centralized governance (preferred by the North).  And, the Civil War was also about slavery, whether or not to abolish it.  While the slavery issue was a key part of the Civil War, the other aspects are also important to consider. Those that fought and even died during this War did so on moral terms, but also on regional terms. As such, the end of the Civil War and the end of slavery did not result in the end of debates on regional concerns or the end of discrimination against newly freed slaves.  The effort to maintain the Union did not mean that everyone accepted that unity without conditions and without holding onto their regional and related socioeconomic perspectives. 

Reconstruction and into the Civil Rights Era, we can see the vestiges of both slavery and the Civil War conflicts. Continued political, social, and economic divides meant that discrimination and disparity persisted, particularly for African Americans. Jim Crow laws and segregation in general was another form of slavery – perhaps not in terms of forced labor but in terms of a form of bondage to a society that would not allow full civil and constitutional rights for Black people. 

As Civil Rights and political, economic, and social opportunities have expanded in more recent decades, more people of color in America have achieved the highest levels in arts, business, church, education, government, media, sports, and other arenas -- even going as far as having our first African American President. But there remains a significant concern over disproportionality that dates back to slavery.  While more White people are poor in America overall, a disproportionate number of the poor are people of color. And that intersection of race and poverty raises many other disparate impacts, particularly for Black people, in regard to education, employment, housing, police and other areas. Despite the various advancements in the U.S., the vestiges of slavery persist.

For that matter, slavery itself has not disappeared even today.  As of 2020, slavery has been outlawed throughout the world, but it has not yet been truly abolished.  In many places, including in the U.S., there are provisions to allow slavery as punishment – whether as criminal or economic punishment.  And more so, slavery remains a global human rights crisis in the forum of forced labor and human trafficking.  An estimated 45+ million people are enslaved around the globe today. In West Africa today, slavery continues but especially in the form of child slavery.  The countries with the reported worst statistics on slavery include: Eritrea, Burundi, Central African Republic, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iran, Mauritania, North Korea, Pakistan, and South Sudan. And human trafficking has grown to an international scale with countless of billions of dollars worth of exploitation in every part of the globe and most notably in the U.S., Europe, Mexico, Eastern Europe and Asia.

As we look at our 21st century, we can still see the political, economic, and social impact of our global history of slavery and the influence that it has had on every country, including America’s practices and underlying attitudes.  We can also see the various negative impacts not only on America’s structures, systems, and people, but also in the world around us, since slavery and racism are both far broader and older than America itself.  As we work to address slavery and racism, we must understand how historically wide and deep this issue has been in our country and our world in order to understand the complexities of revolution or reconciliation applied to these issues.

We must also understand that trying to undo systems and structures in our efforts to address racism and slavery is even more complex, and might actually not be in the best interests of the country or its people of any race.  The United States, in particular, has a history, culture, systems, and structures that go beyond the impact or issue of slavery. Both historically and presently, the United States has demonstrated remarkable endurance, achievements, and positive influences on various political, economic, and social fronts nationally and internationally.  The U.S. as a constitutional democratic republic has stood for 244 years since its Revolution, and 233 since its adoption of its Constitution.  The U.S. and its Constitution has directly influenced more than 150 other nations and constitutions. The United States as a political, economic, and social power has had as much, if not more, impact on the world than arguably any society or country before it.  While the United States can be rightly criticized for many ways it has fallen short, those shortcomings do not erase its legitimate achievements.  For all the historical and present bad we have had in the U.S., far more good has come from our structures, systems, and people both in our country and around the globe. Despite its historical and present failures, the U.S.’ successes set it apart as an aspirational model of its constitutional ideals.  

So the question of revolution vs. reconciliation in America to fight racism and slavery hinges on what we have learned from our history, our failures, and our successes. It requires us to ask what we want to achieve in our future and to what degree we can achieve it. 

If we want to achieve a tearing down of the structures and system because of their tainted history, we might be able to do that, but that doesn’t guarantee what replaces it will be better.  In fact, if we look at the history of most other countries, the tear down has rarely been better.  A revolution now may ultimately lead to successive revolutions over time, unless there is truly a better outcome with intention and great effort.  

If we want to achieve human rights, and opportunities, we need to recognize where we have fallen short but also where we have achieved, and determine how to continue forward from generation to generation. That is the essence of reconciliation…but it’s a difficult and long term process.  Reconciliation is not easy, quick, or clear and requires renewal in each generation.

As we stand at this crossroads, we may realize that the evils of racism and slavery may persist not just today, but even into the future.  At this crossroads, we also realize that there are decisions and efforts to be made now with implications for that future.  Our generation, and each successive generation, needs to consider how they will address this issue within their generation and what that might mean for the next generation.  Whatever direction we go, we have to face the facts of history and our current realities to understand where and how we can make intentional and marked progress and not just for today.  We may not achieve an end to racism and slavery now, but our collective decision in the 21s century to work toward that end may allow the next generations to achieve it. 

Justice in the 21st Century: Part 2 of 4 - Narratives vs. Resolution

by Sosamma Samuel-Burnett, J.D.

Founder/President, G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice

To some, George Floyd was a martyr – a life sacrificed in a long line of racism and racial violence.  To others, George Floyd was a victim of police brutality.  To still others, George Floyd was a criminal who had a tragic end at the hands of a “bad cop.”

To some, racism is structural and systemic.  To others racism is a product of culture and upbringing.  To others racism is an isolated issue among a fringe of society.

These are a few examples of diverging statements that have been pervasive in media, on social media, and within many contexts.  Although these statements relate to similar situations, they have varying perspectives and outcomes.  But they all have one thing in common – they represent narratives that not only state some one’s position on an issue, but also reveal one’s overall position on a range of issues.

Political, social, and economic narratives have become common in our society and especially through the media in many forms.  We are conditioned to think a certain way about various sets of issues. That conditioning develops through the news we watch, the books we read, our political and other affiliations, and our social connections.  Over time, we choose the information that affirms our positions, creating confirmation bias. That bias then creates a narrative that provides us with a perspective, a lens, and a language that we use to assess and explain most of what is happening around us, regardless of alternate facts or perspectives. Narratives are significantly shaping our conscience, our conversations, and our considerations. And narratives impact the pursuit of justice.

Narratives can place us in a stance where our responses are not only highly subjective but also highly emotional, and even inconsistent.  George Floyd has been mourned and honored with murals, words and acts of remembrances, a significant funeral ceremony.  However, many other Blacks who were also killed unjustly, such as Ahmaud Arbrey, have not received that same degree of mourning or honor.  That is in part because George Floyd’s death at the hands of a police officer is part of a larger narrative about police brutality and racial violence. And his killing has stirred tremendous emotion from those who hold that narrative. 

Narratives can be based on some level of truth or fact, but they can also extend past facts.  George Floyd was indeed a victim of police violence.  That is a fact.  But whether he was a martyr is questionable.  A martyr typically is one who gives their life willingly for a cause or belief.  There is no indication that George Floyd was doing that intentionally.  The martyr narrative is also challenging in that George Floyd had been engaged in criminal activity both at the time of his killing and also in his past.  Most victims of police violence are not perfect people, and neither was George Floyd.  They are often in the midst of a crime or have a criminal background when the violent act occurs.  But the issue in this case, or any case of police brutality, is not the character of the victim – as there is rarely a “perfect” victim -- but rather the abuse itself.  So the idea of holding up George Floyd as martyr may actually deflect from the actual abuse and what needs to be done about that abuse.

On the other hand, those that hold to the narrative that police in general do not have systemic issues that relate to brutality and racism, but rather the “bad cop” causes the harm, are also missing some of the central facts.  While there are many great law enforcement officers in Minneapolis and around the country, there are also segments of far less honorable individuals that find “cover” within law enforcement.  Derek Chauvin was not the only officer who has had more than one questionable altercation, and the three other officers that were with him were complicit in aiding George Floyd when Chauvin exerted lethal force.  Chauvin’s killing of George Floyd was not a singular act but rather the most recent incident in a series of incidents of police excessive force.  Depending on the narratives we hold, we process such facts differently, and with varying outcomes.

Narratives can also extend beyond a particular issue to implicate other issues.  The idea that police should be “defunded” or their budgets and responsibilities be significantly reduced is a response that extends the scope of George Floyd’s killing or any act of policy brutality.  The narrative that leads people to think that what happened to George Floyd was the result of too much support, funding, or responsibility within law enforcement, takes us away from the issue of police brutality and to the broader issue of the role of law enforcement.  By shifting from addressing the focused topic to the broader, we may create greater issues.  For example, it may be argued that at this juncture we may need more, not less, support for law enforcement to increase training and counseling to address violent events and compounding issues such anger management and post-traumatic stress. Instead we are positioning law enforcement as community adversaries rather than community allies in times of racial and other unrest. 

While major injustices such as racism are very real, narratives circulate and influence how we consider and address racism.  For those who hold a narrative that White privilege is pervasive in society and that racism is structurally and systemically inherent in America, the outcomes of that perspective are vastly different than for those who hold a different narrative on race and racism, even if they agree that racism is a major concern.  What our narrative is on this issue influences how we see one another and our status within society.

The challenge of certain narratives is that they create labels and that are applied widely rather than narrowly, creating increased biases against racial groups.  The reality is that while racism is a considerable concern in America and around the world, most people are not racists.  Neither is every White person nor every police officer a racist.   However, most people, regardless of race, do have racial and other biases.  Being a person of color does not prevent a person from being biased or even racist themselves.  But there are far more people of every race – the reported 99% -- who support Black and other people of color than those who cause harm. 

And, while America has many institutional and societal concerns related to race, most of our constitutional democratic system is not intended to support racism.  Our Constitution, and particularly our Bill of Rights, has been a model of civil and human rights for 233+ years and influenced more than150 other countries constitutions.  Our laws, at least on their face, uphold civil rights on a local and national level.  And when laws are lacking and/or were unjust, those laws, including our Constitutional provisions, are amended or abolished.  In addition, in recent years our government has passed significant civil rights legislation and also ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination – the most significant human rights treaty on the issue of race.  So to say at this juncture that our governing system is inherently racist may not be accurate in terms of how our system is outlined in these laws and documents. 

But, racism still exists in America despite these laws. To understand why there is racism in America, we have to understand not only the current events that spark racial tensions, but also understand the historical and cultural contexts that have led us here.  The history of America is rife with racial disparities and discrimination, cultural, systemic, and structural. That does not mean that the American system is fundamentally racist.  It does mean, however, that how we have implemented this system and lived within it has often been deeply flawed. 

An example of these flaws is the continued implications not only of slavery, but also of what happened after slavery was abolished.  In the South, even after slavery had been abolished, Black people were not truly free.  The reality was that those around them still treated them with racial contempt even by created unjust laws and practices reflecting that contempt.  The situation in the South was so dire that many took great risks to move to the North.  But they often only found another form of racism and classism in the industrial areas and urban centers of the North.  Ending slavery did not protect these individuals from continued discrimination and disparity in the South nor in the North.    

From slavery to the Great Migration Era to the present, race, racial disparities, and racism, have been part of our American society.  While our system and laws have had flaws, what is more flawed is what actually drives discrimination and racism in our country -- the political, social, and economic self-interests and cultural biases that create policies and practices in business, education, housing, and other arenas against people of color.  These impediments prevented many, particularly Black people in America, from achieving their rights and potentials regardless of the ideals within our system and laws.

But narratives related to our history, can also skew how we see that history and how we apply historical lessons to our present justice concerns.  Learning about the limits and flaws of our system and the influence of our self-interests and biases within our nation is important. But understanding those limits and flaws does not negate the many good qualities of America and its people.  Narratives that opt to tear down the system and its historical figures based on personal, cultural, or contextual flaws are missing the greater impact of those who have sought freedom, fought for freedom, and ensured freedom.  Our “Forefathers and Foremothers” may not resonate with everyone because they were flawed people in flawed contexts, but they still contributed significantly to what we can appreciate about America today.  The America they helped create has benefited people of all races and backgrounds, despite the flaws of racism that coincides with those benefits.

While there are parts of our governing system that need reform, tearing down the system as a whole, just like tearing down the statues and representations of it, will not tear down racism.  While there may be some representations that are no longer appropriate, tearing down whole elements of American history only galvanizes those who are already racist, and at the same time removes some of the historical reminders that we need to overcome racism within each generation.  Instead, what needs to be torn down are stigmas, biases, and cultural perspectives that prevent people of color and many others from fully realizing their constitutional and human rights.  

Perhaps the biggest concern around narratives is that they create conflict and deflect us from reaching resolution.  Narratives that give us immediately volatile responses to various issues in our society miss the deeper significance of those issues.  Issues like racism have had long and deep historical roots and complex present dynamics that we need to learn, comprehend, agree upon, and address together – which takes intention, time, and cooperation.  Our energies and our focus should be on resolving the problems, rather than exacerbating the problems.  People will always need to express concern, disagreement, anger, grief, etc. and should be free to do so – an important part of the process of resolution.  But the more volatile the expression, the less likely they will get to a mind-set and a context for cooperation or resolution.  

Racism certainly presents a distinct challenge to seeking justice in the 21st century. But the 21st century also presents much potential for resolution, if we are committed to that end.  To get to resolution, we need to start with a shared reality rather than divergent narratives. The most significant question in addressing racism is asking ourselves “what is justice for all?”  Resolving racism is ultimately about overcoming conflicting narratives to arrive at a shared truth about justice and a shared commitment to achieving it for all.

Justice in the 21st Century - Part 1 of 4: Assumptions vs. Understanding

By Sosamma Samuel-Burnett

Founder/President, G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice

I am neither White nor Black. But I am a person of color who was born in another country, raised in yet another country, and grew up in this country as an immigrant. I have faced racism and discrimination directly in my life, in my family's life, and in various ways.  I have directly worked on issues of race with my own organization and with various other advocacy and policy organizations for 30+ years.  Yet, I have been told by some that I don’t know discrimination, racism, or what it means to be a person of color. 

I am a Woman. I have faced gender discrimination, sexism, and sexual assault in my life. I also have worked directly on a range of women's issues through my own organization and through other advocacy organizations for 30+ years. Yet, I have been told by some that I don’t know the situation of women. 

I am neither a Democrat nor Republican, neither Left nor Right.  I choose to vote independently based on my beliefs, knowledge, and experiences. I have worked on voting and related issues from my school years to the present.  I have been very concerned about the polarizing impact of the political extremes on issues of justice.  Yet, I have been presumed by some to be Left or Right not based on my views but based on others views. 

I hold a degree in International Politics.  I have studied, worked, and taught on topics of politics, international issues, and public policy for 30+ years.  Yet I have been told by some that I don’t know the issues that affect politics and international concerns. 

I hold a degree in Law.  I have spent most of my professional life serving as an advocate for those who are most vulnerable. Yet I have been told that I don’t know various issues affecting those populations. 

I have studied and worked my entire academic and professional life on issues of civil and human rights.  I also have taught courses on Constitution & Civil Rights and International Relations and Human Rights in undergraduate, graduate, and law school settings.  Yet, I am told by some that I don’t know civil rights and human rights violations. 

I am a Mother of three children.  I care for them while also holding a full-time job. Yet, I have been told by some that I don’t know how hard it is to be a Mom let alone a working Mom. 

I am a Wife to a Husband who is a Pilot and former Air Force aviator.  While my husband’s work has taken him far away for days, weeks, or even months, I have had to take care of our household solo.  Yet, I am told by some that I don’t know how difficult it is to be a single parent. 

I am a Christian. My life is dedicated to trying to reflect Jesus' love.  My understanding of Christ has been a spiritual, emotional, and intellectual journey that has been the most significant of my life. But I am told by some that Christianity and Christians are unloving and ignorant. 

While I understand and appreciate that everyone has their own experiences, perspectives, and opinions, that understanding does not discount my own.  I spent all of my life, time, and effort living, learning, and developing who I am, what I know, and what I believe – and I have to value that as well. Despite all the voices that try to contradict my reality, I am confident in who I am and what I believe. That is because I spent a lifetime getting here. I became what I am and what I believe through my own experiences over many years.  The internet, social media, or others opinions did not make me -- my God and my life did. 

But, I recognize that someone who has not walked in my shoes, has not known my story, and has not been a significant part of my life, may make incorrect assumptions about me and my perspectives.  People who do not know us, do not know what we think or know, who do not have a relationship with us, can draw conclusions that contradict our life’s experience. The assumptions others make are not usually ill-intended, but they do have consequences – both for the individual and for society as a whole. 

My own experiences with assumptions and contradictions from others and from society have taught me an important lesson.  Without relationship, there is limited context for understanding.  When someone doesn’t know or understand your story and perspective, they draw inaccurate assumptions of you or your views based on their own perspectives and their own contexts. That then prevents both individuals from truly seeing or understanding one another or their respective points of view or reference. 

Thus, recognizing the assumptions we are making about someone else may be a first step in addressing various injustices – including racism, sexism, and other significant issues in our world.  Breaking down our inaccurate assumptions helps break down stereotypes, disagreements, and even hatred based on such assumptions. By engaging with one another to understand each other’s life experiences and points of reference, we are less likely to make inaccurate assumptions and more likely to consider the other’s point of view and how they got there.  But the process of engaging and understanding another starts with each person looking within themselves rather than pointing out to others first.

If we looked in, we would likely realize more about who we are and how we got there.  We also may gain greater confidence in our views but also greater humility in our pathways.  More so, we may realize that the great injustices in society including racism, sexism, and other divides and conflicts are not rooted so much in the “system” as in the deeper and more complex places of  individual and community culture and understanding.  Injustices are often a product of incorrect assumptions and contradictions, but they stem from a lack of  love, understanding, and wisdom.  

Love, understanding, and wisdom are basic building blocks for individuals, families, and communities, but basic does not mean simple.  They are difficult to achieve and require mutuality to be fully realized.  Although we can make some impact in our lives with “one way” love, understanding, and wisdom, mutuality is what exponentially grows the impact of these elements and extends to society as whole.  We each have a mutual responsibility to both give and receive love, understanding, and wisdom in all contexts – and that is difficult. 

To overcome injustices such as racism or sexism, mutuality of love, understanding, and wisdom is particularly important.  Both the victim and the perpetrator, both the individual and society, have roles and responsibilities in addressing problems.  It may be difficult for a victim of a hate-crime, for example, to face a perpetrator of that crime, with love, understanding, and wisdom.   But without that, we are left with the results of the crime – usually loss and anger – rather than resolution of the circumstances or prevention of future concern.  

While righteous anger is valid in response to societal wrongs, it is distinct from retaliating anger. When we are angry about how we have been treated, the temptation is to lash out. Lashing out because of harm, often creates more harm, and does not prevent a future harm. We are then caught in a continuum of violence.  We are forced to live with open wounds rather than seeking healing. Expressing anger through such backlash is not an act of justice but rather of retaliation. Retaliation may allow us to express our pain and hurt and anger, but it will not bring resolution in and of itself. Resolution is the harder work of discourse, exchange, mutuality from all sides to demonstrate a commitment to ending conflict. Otherwise the expression of anger only reveals the anger, and does not change hearts, minds, or culture that is at the root of the violation.. 

Addressing injustices such as racism and sexism requires us to push past anger and wounds, and get to the place of love, understanding, and wisdom. That place is not always comfortable, not always gentle, and almost never quick.  But it starts from within and extends outward.  Each time a significant issue arises, we each have to individually and collectively consider how that issue may relate to us and our understanding.  And we must conscientiously set out to learn about one another through reflection on these and other key aspects of our personal and shared stories leading to the significant issue before us now.

The hard work of ending racism or sexism necessitates studying and addressing underlying political, social, and economic factors, but that is only part of the equation.  The other, and perhaps harder work, has to do with our underlying personal and cultural reference points.  It takes time, effort, and intentionally to dig into the factors that impact vulnerable people, people of color, women, and others.  It may be even more challenging to consider our own experiences that create the assumptions and contradictions to our understanding and value of each other. 

Until we come to a point in our lives and in our societies where we can shift from opinions and assumptions to mutual love and respect, we will always face walls, divides, and conflicts – and racism and sexism will persist. Throughout time, these are the results of lacking love, understanding, and wisdom.  Perhaps that is why we are currently facing so many concerns in our society.  We are reeling, struggling, fighting, because we have forgotten how to love, understand, and be wise together, especially in the midst of crises.  

But each crisis we face, each significant issue, is an opportunity to demonstrate love, understanding, and wisdom.  It is in these crises and issues that we put these elements into action.  We can discover who we really are and see who others really are.  But when we face challenges with assumptions, criticism, fear, anger, division, violence, etc., we are neither exercising those elements nor recognizing our greater selves. 

Through each significant societal challenge, crisis, and injustice, we are called again to demonstrate these elements in increasingly complex ways and increasingly difficult contexts.  There is much we can learn, not only about each other but about our history,  our present, and our future. And that learning is the starting point toward understanding. Through that understanding we can develop wisdom and discernment. And ultimately our understanding and wisdom will lead us to more accurate conclusions and effective solutions. Fundamental to this process is love and mutuality – no one side can give all or fix all. It requires all to join in conversation, cooperation, and even compromise. 

Injustices such as racism and sexism have existed since the beginning of time, and persist in our present time.  But we have to recognize them in our present context.  Although we might see resemblances to earlier times in our history, we are not living during the Colonial Era, American Revolution, Civil War, World War I or II, Civil Rights Era, etc., we are living in a different context and era. In the present context, we are called anew to learn through our personal and shared histories and knowledge to inform the way we can and should act and react to challenges of this era. The injustices we face in the 21st century are a reminder of what it means to love, understand, and be wise in a 21st century context. 

Ruminations During Social Distancing

By Randall Margo
Board Director, G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice

Social distancing may not focus the mind, but it does give it time to wander and ponder over our predicament. Among the issues grabbing my attention in recent days:

What is essential?  Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, we were told schools and universities were essential to our society. Education was a high priority for our communities. Now, its grocery and pet stores, and companies like Netflix and Door Dash that occupy such prominence. Meanwhile, COVID-19 has replaced climate change, our world's prior existential threat, to such an extent, that Tesla, the country's leading sustainable car manufacturer was forced to close its doors, despite the protestations of its CEO, Elon Musk. “Essential” has taken on new, though possibly temporary, meaning and priority in the present context.

Who knew our economy was so reliant on entertaining us?  We previously knew sports, entertainment, and travel along with bars and restaurants soaked up a lot of our discretionary dollars, but its still shocking to to see current figures that indicate how reliant our economy and employment has become on these items. While these leisure and entertainment jobs and businesses may seem unessential to public health officials and politicians, the table below demonstrates how important these industries have become to our overall economy. After just a one week of a shutdown covering roughly one-fourth of our population, it is clear that the present trade-off weighted heavily on physical health over economic health. This trade-off is sure to be reexamined as the unemployment numbers skyrocket and businesses go bankrupt in the coming weeks. 

Are medical professionals and facilities adequate to meet the requirements of an aging population? Some have likened this pandemic to a black swan event, one so rare that it seldom repeats within a span of a lifetime. But, one commonality of this virus among all nations is that those with older populations are the most vulnerable. In particular, the major concern amongst the nations hardest hit is the lack of available resources with respect to hospital facilities, supplies and medical personnel. In the United States, the quantity of doctors is limited by the number of residency slots available. Moreover, states typically have extensive and costly processes for granting new or expanded medical facilities. Consequently, capacity issues become apparent during a health crisis, because of the intentional limitations in place. These issues should warrant reconsideration given the anticipated growth in our elderly population during the coming years.

Will actions taken to limit the scale of this pandemic result in any long-term changes?  One obvious trend likely to accelerate even after the pandemic is the use of online platforms for school instruction, work, and shopping.  Particularly as 5G internet connectivity becomes more prevalent with its capacity for faster download speed, we are likely to see online school and work becomes a more regular part of our economy and society. 

What levels of restrictions will we accept?  One of the more interesting cultural phenomenons is the compliance of so many U.S. residents to obey government edicts that restrict their ability to earn a living, forego common freedom of movement and activities, even to worship together, for a virus that, at least currently, has been far less deadly than a typical year of influenza. Should another more virulent virus occur similar to the lethality experienced during the Spanish Flu of 1918, what level of restrictions might our government impose and Americans be willing to accept, and for how long? 

Do we view mortality differently now? It gives pause to consider that as the country has become more secular over the past century and people's faith in God and an afterlife has diminished, is there more willingness to value security over freedom? Do we somehow view our mortality differently and perhaps more cherished than prior generations as though somehow death can be averted rather than just postponed.      

While these ruminations are not conclusive, they do raise key questions that we will have to consider both during and after this crisis. The unprecedented nature of our present response to the current pandemic will certainly impact how we respond to any future crises we may face. 

---

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not imply endorsement by G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice. We are a faith-based, nonpartisan organization that seeks to extend the conversation about justice with a posture of dignity and respect.