It’s quite a feat to come up with a new framework that can accurately detail the shortcomings of…
Benji Lampel

I think we need to distinguish between the “current framework” and the lies that are used to rationalise it. “Race” is one of those lies; “The Poor” is another (although poverty is real-enough). So is the “Self-made man”, along with “Free Trade”, “Competition”, “Third-World Debt” , “Caste”, “Aristocracy” and a lot else.

Another point that strikes me about the original article is its focus on the US (“America”) and people of African descent there. Slavery has taken many forms throughout the World and through history and skin colour has only occasionally been the distinction by which it is rationalised.

We might fairly ask, too, if the working conditions of the people who make our favourite portable electronic devices are even as well-off as slaves were on the cotton fields of the US South. Certainly, they are paid but if all they are paid has to go in food and shelter, and they are in debt to their landlords and the food shop, are they better-off than a slave fed and housed by the slave-keeper? Shades of the Kentucky coal miners in perpetual debt to the company store. The bosses and the wage-slaves are of the same ethnicity in most of the countries competing to produce electronics but it’s still the same oppression, and the same prejudices.

It’s about the distribution of wealth and power. Race, caste and so forth are distractions.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.