Triaged America?

Just think of what it would be like if hospitals decided to no longer triage its emergency room patients or no longer decided to target and treat specific diseases. Instead, the new business model going forward would be to treat every illness the same and to only address those sicknesses that are common amongst all people. Lets then say that this became a national mandate. How well would it be received by the public and why? Who would benefit and who would lose?

Change in America, in regards to race, means essentially the same thing. America now wants a generalized treatment of social ills. No more special interest treatments! Only those problems that are common amongst the general population will be treated, as too many people in the general population are upset that others are getting more or different attention than from what they are getting. It does not matter that some problems are more severe in degree and or kind than “the general” populations, and hence, a need for triage and targeting of the specifics. To hell with that, every entity is to be treated the same, regardless of history or condition.

Even more absurd and callous than that, in this parallel, is that even mentioning the fact that your injury is different, in degree and or kind gets you ostracized as playing the “special injury card”. The analogous concept in an Emergency waiting room is the “someone is sicker than you card”, that allows someone injured more serioisly and differently than you to be treated before you and different than you (i.e. discrimination). Is it fair to let someone sicker than you go before you and have that sickness treated based upon its specific merits, which may be different than yours? One would hope that America could be so understanding about the socioeconomic condition of blacks in America. America still needs a triaged social policy that targets, separates and treats based upon the specific and often different causes, effects, history of the population.

Here is a thought. Who gets to define “change” so that we will know it when we see it? Who gets to define what "working together" is so that we will know it when we see it? I imagine that these terms will be filled democratically by virtue of majority rule. Right? I mean that is the fairest thing to do....right? Well, who is the racial majority in America, by far? Whites just happen to be the racial majority so the definition of “change” and other rhetoric will be defined by their perceptions and beliefs. They are certainly not going to be defined by 13% of the total population that has little weight in the majority rule construct, and even less socioeconomic strength to lobby in its behalf. So it’s obvious to see that more things suppose to “change” the more they are actually going to remain the same.

So what must be understood is that the “Change” people seek, in regards to race, and regards to politics, is simply the majority getting minority to accept things the majority's way. In other words, America is to be defined by its “average” and not its extremes, which are seen as the root of division. It’s the “general rule”, so to speak, over the exceptions to the rule. Unfortunately for the black community in America, the general rule is not greatly influenced by the us. In a tug of war, 13 pulling against 70 will produce an obvious winner. So any problem endemic, disproportionate, acute or different in kind, if not degree, from the “general rule” of America, will not be addressed or targeted for treatment. That is ominous for poor blacks, but seems acceptable for many middle class blacks who share more in common with the white population these days, to benefit from policy representing the needs of the majority (whites).

There are different pathways to the same destination. The problem is that if the path or reason for poverty is not the same for everyone. A generalized, white, approach based upon the causes of poverty and social problems within the white community, at it is becoming the template, for change, will not work efficiently on other groups whose path to the destination differed. Black America has the most unique path to the destination of poverty and social problems here in America. Hence, having social policy geared towards the generalized path based upon shared experiences will not work for black people.

As an example, let’s take the issue of legalization of drugs. The black community has been ravaged, more than any other, over the last several decades, from drugs. The reason being is that drug dealing offered economic opportunity, albeit illegal, to many poor black communities. One can also make the argument that the community was purposely targeted, after the riots against the “system” in the 60’s, so that it would implode and not explode.

The violence associated with drugs is very similar to the violence associated with illegal liquor selling during prohibition. So eliminating the prohibition of certain drugs could radically reduce violence and other problems in the black communities, just like violence was radically reduced when prohibition was repealed. However, since the “general population” does not suffer the effects of this violence anywhere near the rate of the black community, the benefit cost analysis is different and hence they see more of a cost than benefit. Consequently, something that could potentially benefit the black community is stymied by majority rule benefit cost analysis.

People need to look for the debit anytime people start talking about credits. Every credit has a debit in nature and life as nothing is gained without something being lost or given up. The change that people are looking for will come at a cost and price to many. An America less divisive is not necessarily a good thing. Before the Civil Rights movement, whites in the South thought things were pretty good and were arrogant and or uncaring enough to think that they could speak for blacks. The only way to get from injustice to justice was via divisiveness and agitators who forced the issue. That change represented a loss of a degree of white privilege and impunity, but resulted in the gain or rights for blacks in the South.

When white America thinks of the causes of division, they see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as the postcard child for why America is divided. Its people like them who are constantly pointing out and talking about issues of race. In other words, it’s not whites or the history of whites that manifested a racial divided America observable by anyone with open eyes; rather, the symptoms are the cause. So the change required to bring America together is defined, by the general population which is white, is to discredit, demote and remove people like Jackson and Sharpton and all who think as they do. The goal is to sweep the legacy of America’s racial past and its influence on the racial conditions of the present, under the rug forever. That is the change that America is seeking with the help of middle and upper class blacks joining together in class warfare against the black underclass.