I was on Facebook the other day, when I saw a shared post that said the following:
“No white person alive today ever owned a slave. No black person alive today was ever a slave. We can’t move forward if people want to keep living in the past.”
I was bothered by this statement and expressed some of my concerns to the person who posted it. However, the fact that posts like that are shared and applauded on social media even by well-meaning people suggests that there are some fundamental misunderstandings about the issues of racism and inequality in our country. I am far from an expert on these issues and this is by no means an exhaustive list, but I wanted to share three reasons why I think posts like that are misguided as well as an illustration from math that helps me make sense of the current situation.
The first problem is that statements like that completely ignore important historical details like the fact that legal segregation lasted until the 1960s. In addition, as I documented extensively in some of my recent posts, racial bias is still a pervasive issue. The idea that being concerned about racial injustice in this country is tantamount to “living in the past” misses the fact that the lingering effects of slavery and Jim Crow laws are still very much a part of the present.
The second problem is that statements like that come across as insensitive. They are like telling someone “get over it” or “calm down” when they are upset. Saying something like that to someone who is hurting and angry is likely to exacerbate the situation. As a child, I had a bit of a temper (as I am sure my siblings can attest), and there was no quicker way to turn my anger up from a 3 to an 11 than to tell me to calm down. When my brother would say things like that, I felt like he was saying “you are overreacting” and “your frustrations are illegitimate” and it made my blood boil. I would like to think that I have gotten better at controlling my temper (sorry guys!), but I still find those types of comments unhelpful. Telling someone “don’t be angry” doesn’t actually address the reasons for their anger, and as such it can be perceived as dismissive. The Bible talks about how it is important to “weep with those who weep” (Romans 15:12) and to “bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2). That doesn’t mean condoning unfettered anger, but it does mean acknowledging when other people are hurting and trying to empathize when they are distressed.
The third, and most complicated problem, is that it oversimplifies the problem of racial unrest by suggesting that it occurs because people “want to keep living in the past.” In other words, it suggests that the racial inequality in our country is self-inflicted. I have heard this point made many times before. The argument goes something like this:
“The African American community has all kinds of problems. Their median net worth is 1/10th of that of white Americans and they are two and half times more likely to live below the poverty line. They are three times as likely to receive government assistance. There is no mystery as to why this happens. They are over 10% less likely to finish high school and over 40% less likely to graduate from college. Their children are almost twice as likely to grow up in a single parent home and over five times more likely to end up in jail. Slavery was abolished a long time ago, and segregation has been over with for over 50 years and yet many of those statistics are virtually unchanged. Maybe people should stop complaining about racism, clean up their act and take responsibility for their actions.”
This quote is made up, but all of the statistics in it are true and it paints a troubling picture of the inequality in our country. However, the assertion that all racial tension and inequality and all of the aforementioned problems can be explained by people who “WANT to keep living in the past” is a strong and unfounded claim. How do you know that is the reason? Is it possible there are other reasons? As I discussed in the last post, there is evidence that discrimination is real. Couldn't that also be a factor?
Claims like this are also demeaning to millions of people. If the people who make such claims were to objectively examine the evidence, they would find that the causes of inequality are far too complex to be described by any single explanation. Furthermore, any attempt to explain this inequality without addressing its historical roots as well as the problem of racism that persists today would be misguided.
To illustrate why these factors matter, it is helpful to consider an example from the field of dynamical systems which is a branch of math concerned with describing the behavior of systems that change over time. My hope is that the intuition that we all have for how these systems operate might provide some insight into the role of history and prejudice in the inequality that we see today.
Imagine a ball rolling on a hill shaped like the blue curve in the figure below. Suppose that the ball is released from rest at a point along the blue curve. Where will it end up?
We can immediately rule out most of the points along the curve. Because gravity pulls the ball down, the ball will start to roll as long as it is on an incline. It can only come to rest at points where the surface is flat because at those points the force of gravity pulling the ball down can be perfectly counteracted by the ground pushing up (perpendicular to the surface). When those forces balance, the ball can come to rest. Intuitively, we know that this will happen at the bottom of a valley, i.e. at point 1 or at point 3 Notice however, that there is one other point, point #2, where the surface is flat, so we could make the same argument there as well.
These three points are called equilibrium points because the ball can balance or reach equilibrium there. Although no one would be surprised if the ball ended up at points 1 or 3, if the ball came to rest at point 2 we would all be shocked. This suggests that there is something fundamentally different about points 1 and 3 as compared to point 2. Equilibrium points like 1 and 3 are called stable equilibria because they are robust to small disturbances or perturbations (the technical term) whereas point 2 is called an unstable equilibrium as it does not possess this feature. To explain what this means, suppose we were to place a ball at either point 1 or point 3 and then give the ball a little push so that it moves slightly away from the point in either direction. As long as the push is not too strong, then gravity will immediately cause the ball to roll back TOWARD equilibrium. This is, of course, not true of point 2, where any perturbation, no matter how small, would cause the ball to roll AWAY from equilibrium. A gentle push, a truck driving down the road nearby, a sneeze in the vicinity, or a butterfly flapping its wings on the other side of the planet would have the potential to move the ball off of the ridge located at point 2 and cause it to start rolling downhill toward one of the other equilibria. The distinction between these two types of points is that stable equilibria have a basin of attraction. Anything that starts sufficiently close to a stable equilibrium point (i.e. within the basin of attraction) will be attracted to the equilibrium, whereas unstable equilibria have no basin of attraction and they often serve as barriers between stable equilibria.
Now let’s imagine that instead of one ball, there are many balls strewn all about the hill and they are all allowed to settle into their equilibrium states. Some would end up at point 1 and others would end up at point 3. Now suppose that we were to shake the landscape back and forth to get the balls moving in a random direction. What would happen? The answer of course depends on how hard you shake it. If you shake it just a little, then the balls might bounce around a bit, but they would return to their original state. If they started at point 1, they would return to point 1, and if they started at point 3, they would return to point 3. However, if you were to shake it harder, then you might see a few balls from point 1 make it over the hill and land at point 3 and vice versa. As you increase the intensity of the shaking it would make it easier and easier for balls to escape their basin of attraction and therefore more and more balls would switch equilibria. Ultimately, it is the size of the barrier between them, the height of point 2, and the intensity of the shaking that will dictate how likely or unlikely transitions between equilibria will be.
So what does this have to do with racism and inequality? We can think of this scenario as a metaphor for a far more complex dynamical system: life. I would argue that many of the observations about the behavior of the balls can reveal important aspects of how life actually works. In this metaphor, each ball represents a person, the shaking represents the twists and turns of life, and the points along the curve represent different possible states of life. The first stable equilibrium (point 1) represents poverty and the second stable equilibrium (point 3) represents socio-economic stability while the unstable equilibrium (point 2) represents some precarious intermediate state.
The first lesson from the metaphor is that the place where you start has an important role in determining where you end up. If you start at point 1, you need a great deal of momentum to make it over the hill to point 3. This can only happen if quite a few things go right. The shaking needs to be powerful enough to get you moving quickly. You need to be moving in the right direction. You need to avoid bumping into other balls along the way. It is similar in life. If you are born into a life of poverty, quite a few things need to go right for you to escape. You need to have people in your life who take care of you, who help you stay out of trouble, who help you get an education, and who provide you with opportunities. You might even need some luck! You certainly have say over how hard you work, who you associate with, whether you make wise decisions, but your role models in life (who you don’t necessarily get to choose) can have an influence on those things as well. The reality is that even if you do everything right, you need a number of factors that are outside of your control to line up in order for you to escape poverty. On the other hand, if you are born into a family where your parents have steady incomes, where they send you to a good school, where they support and encourage you in your education, where they are available to help you avoid falling in with the wrong crowd, where you have a network that can help open doors for jobs and other opportunities, then it is possible to end up falling into poverty, but a lot of things have to go wrong for that to happen. Again, your starting point matters.
The second lesson is that the size of the barriers matter. Suppose that the shape of the landscape looked more like this:
In this case, it would be much easier to move between states because the peak at point 2 is much lower. The analogy here is that obstacles you face in life (which may be out of your control) affect your potential for upward mobility and the landscape may not look the same for everyone. Depending on where you were born and what that environment looks like you could face modest challenges or substantial ones. Being born into an impoverished community can raise those barriers.
Racism and other forms of discrimination can also raise those barriers. If people are more likely to ignore your resume because of the sound of your name or the school that you attended, that raises the barrier. If your interviewer forms a slightly lower opinion of you because of the way that you talk or the color of your skin, that raises the barrier. If you are singled out by the police and end up with a criminal record, that raises the barrier (See for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/pdf/nihms222286.pdf). If an algorithm uses information about where you lived to determine that you are more likely to miss payments on a mortgage, and as a result your application is denied, that raises the barrier (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_bias) . On their own, these things may not prevent you from changing states, but they can certainly decrease the probability that you will be able to do so. These sorts of changes can make the difference between an insurmountable barrier and a very manageable one.
The third lesson is that subtle changes matter. Imagine two balls, one starting just to the left of point 2 and another just to the right. Even if their initial states are imperceptibly different, their equilibrium states are likely to look radically different. The same thing can happen in life. Particularly when you are working your way over the hill, one small event can push you over the edge making a huge difference in the long-term trajectory. My brother recently told me about an acquaintance whose son got a job working in a factory at the age of 15, sadly, this young man suffered an accident on the job and lost two of his fingers. That one event was the first in a chain of events that caused his world to crumble. While riding his bike during his newfound free time, he was mistaken for a bike thief. He was able to avoid charges, but not before losing trust in the police and justice system. He fell in with the wrong crowd and at the age of 17 he was arrested for stealing a purse on a dare. His case was assigned to a judge known for making an example out of people and who decided to charge him as an adult. He will now spend a year of his life in prison and for the rest of his life, he will have to explain to his prospective employers why he has a criminal record. You can blame this predicament on a tragic accident, or on being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or on a foolish decision or on an overzealous justice system, but I suspect that if any one of those things had gone differently, his life would have headed in a different direction. This does not absolve him of responsibility for the mistakes that he made, but it is worth considering, if his skin had been white would the outcome have been the same?
The reality is that when slavery ended, almost every black family in this country had to start from point 1, a state of poverty. This was not true of all of their white skinned neighbors. Sure there were some white people who faced poverty, but their landscape looked very different. They did not have to overcome the barriers of segregation and racism keeping them out of the best schools and limiting their opportunities for success to the margins of society. As a result, some black people escaped the cycle of poverty, but many did not. As segregation ended, that barrier inched lower, but that does not necessarily mean that it disappeared. There are reasons to believe that this barrier of racism remains to this day. Undoubtedly, it is easier for black men and women to overcome those obstacles today, and some do. But many do not. Why is that? We can certainly lay some blame at their feet. I know for a fact that they make mistakes because everyone does. But to stop there would be to ignore the fact that they face a very different landscape than the one people like me encounter. And the sad reality is that, like the balls, when one generation fails to make it over the hill, the next generation often has to start again from the bottom. To deride them by saying, “I succeeded, why can’t you?” is like gloating after winning a race where you were given a huge head start. Some people will do that (just ask my 6-year-old son), but it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Over the last few weeks there have been protests going on around the world. These protests started as a result of police brutality, but their cause has become much broader than that. According to their webpage, the Black Lives Matter movement is committed to “creating a world free of anti-Blackness, where every Black person has the social, economic, and political power to thrive.” In other words, this is a call to lower the barriers, to shake up the landscape so that everyone has the ability to reach stability. It is a call for equality of opportunity, so that every person in this country is given a fair chance at a better life. I do not agree with every part of their platform or methods (or the lawless actions taken by some of those involved in the protests), but that seems like a goal worth pursuing. And, I hope that by reading this, perhaps someone might be encouraged to reconsider whether scolding African Americans when they fail to thrive is the right response. I would argue that the right response, particularly if you are a follower of Jesus like I am, is to view them as brothers (Galatians 3:28), to encourage and build them up (Ephesians 4:29), and to support them as they seek justice (Micah 6:8). This does not mean ignoring personal responsibility, but it does mean going beyond simplistic explanations and being willing to acknowledge that complex problems require complex solutions. Condescension and dismissiveness are not going to cut it.
PS. A related argument I have often heard is that there is no point in worrying about racism and police brutality until black people start taking care of their own. This argument suggests that if they would just stop hurting each other and themselves by committing crimes and resisting arrest, then none of this would be an issue. Even if that were true, to propose that as a solution is nonsensical. Who is actually going to heed that suggestion? I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that real criminals don’t care what you or I think, so this argument won’t persuade them to change. What about the innocent? Well, they are not the ones causing problems in the first place, although too often they are the ones victimized by it, so this does not help them either. A message like that doesn’t offer a solution, it just dismisses the problem. On the other hand, you know what might help the situation? If well-meaning people whose choices affect the lives of black men, women, and children, like police officers, judges, teachers, hiring managers, and government officials, were to find a way to set aside their biases and show compassion instead. So perhaps if, instead of pointing out other people’s mistakes, we were to look in the mirror and ask “What can I do?” we might be able to bring about some measure of positive change.
PSS. On a more light-hearted note. I am sure there are some people who choose to live in the past that and need to move on. The character Uncle Rico from the movie Napoleon Dynamite, a man who was always constantly reminiscing about his high school football career (or lack thereof), comes to mind. We can all use a reason to laugh these days, so here is a clip that I always find amusing: Uncle Rico.
Commenti