Humanities Harrovian - Issue One

Humanities Harrovian

Civil Rights Throughout History Issue One The Philosophical Groundings of Equality Class and Race: unrelated or inseparable?

Most Influential Speeches and Songs from the Civil Rights Movement How Gerrymandering Inhibits Civil Rights Progression LGBT History Outside the Western World Could God Be Blamed for Racial Inequality in America?

I1

Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-5 About Us ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-7 Black Wall Street ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8-9 Harry Streatfield, Year 13, Peel

Class and Race: unrelated or inseparable? ........................................................................................................................... 10-11 Jasmin Schneider, Year 13, Gellhorn

Could God Be Blamed for Racial Inequality in America? ....................................................................................................... 12-13 Vienna Kwan, Year 11, Keller

Has Political Correctness in America Gone Too Far? ............................................................................................................ 14-16 Amber Liu, Year 13, Keller

How Gerrymandering Inhibits Civil Rights Progression ...........................................................................................................17-18 Stella Liu, Year 11, Keller

How Riots and Civil Rights Go Hand in Hand ........................................................................................................................ 19-21 Sophie Hunka, Year 13, Gellhorn

India Under the British Empire: The Story of Repression and the Fight for Independence ................................................. 22-25 Rehan Rosha, Year 13, Churchill

Is History Repeating Itself? An Outline of Police Bsrutality in the USA ............................................................................... 26-28 Sophie Ho, Year 12, Wu and Se Lyn Lim, Year 12, Wu

Most Influential Speeches and Songs from the Civil Rights Movement ............................................................................... 29-31 Jolie Chan, Year 11, Wu

LGBT History Outside the Western World .................................................................................................................................. 32 Sophie Hunka, Year 13, Gellhorn

The Impact of Civil Rights on the Roman Empire ................................................................................................................. 33-34 Hanson Wen, Year 9, Peel

The Philosophical Groundings of Equality ............................................................................................................................. 35-40 Joshua Yen, Year 12, Shaftsbury

The Story of The Subway Vigilante ..................................................................................................................................... 41- 43 Alexandra Joseph Hui, Year 9, Gellhorn

When Should We Address Inequality? .................................................................................................................................. 44-50 Julien Levieux, Year 13, Churchill

Citations .............................................................................................................................................................................. 51- 57 Credits ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 58

2I

Contents

Contents

I3

4I

Contents

Contents

I5

About Us

The Humanities Harrovian Team: (clockwise to centre) Sally Wang, Jarra Sisowath, Sophie Putman, Kayan Tam, Ingrid Ng, Jett Li

Who are we?

At the beginning of the 2019-2020 school year, two friends with the same passion for interdisciplinary learning and exploration in the Humanities came together, crafting an initial pitch for a school-wide academic publication. Very soon, this nascent form of an idea gained traction and the team expanded to include several other student authors, illustrators and editors who now serve as the foundation of the Humanities Harrovian magazine.

What is our vision?

We are a student-led project, seeking to give our peers the opportunity to broaden their horizons by extending their intellectual curiosity beyond the curriculum. We hope the Humanities Harrovian will become a platform on which interested and capable students can express their views on subjects ranging from contemporary issues to obscure historical events.

6I

About Us

‘Creating the Humanities Harrovian from the ground-up has been an amazing and enriching opportunity for me and my peers. We are so proud of what we have accomplished and truly hope that this publication can inspire everyone to communicate their passions for the Humanities outside of the classroom.’

---- Sally Wang, Founder ‘Writing about a topic that interests me beyond the classroom has been such a great opportunity. It’s an amazing chance to do some independent learning and get to argue my point of view.’

----- Sophie Putman, Founder ‘As an art student, I have always acknowledged the fact it is hard to seek out opportunities to contribute to the school through art. As such I am incredibly lucky to have found a group of peers that is so supportive of its member’s passions. The formation of the Humanities Harrovian not only creates more opportunities for humanities enthusiasts but also opens a new pathway for artists to share their talents with the Harrow community.’

----- Kayan, Art Director ‘A publication like this only comes to fruition because of an enormous amount of work behind the scenes. The Humanities Harrovian team has combined academic curiosity with dedication and teamwork to produce a document that is astonishing in its maturity and professionalism. Enthusiasm and intentions are easy; seeing them through are the hard part. This team’s vision has materialised into something quite unique and will be enjoyed by the Harrow HK community now, and for years to come.’

--- Ms A. King, Academic Supervisor

About Us

I7

Black Wall Street Harry Streatfield, Year 13, Peel

Businesses shattered, blood shed, lives lost — all on the grounds of race. Greenwood, Tulsa, Oklahoma, a town home to multiple successful businesses owned by African American residents in the early 20th century. The community was among the most successful and prosperous African American communities in the United States and was hence seen as a threat to the successful capitalism of White people. This resentment translated into different aspects of African American discrimination.

An example of this discrimination towards African Americans was in May 1921, when Dick Rowland, a nineteen year old African American man, was reported by the Tulsa Tribune to have allegedly raped a White woman, Sarah Page. The White community, in response to this accusation, resorted to unrivaled violence against the African Americans, in defense of what they called the “White woman virtue”. This violent revenge left thirty-five city buildings burning, resulting in the deaths of over 300 people and leaving over 800 injured.

Black Wall Street was established between 1965-1920 by O.W Gurley, an African American businessman who moved to Tulsa from Arkansas and purchased over 40 acres of land. He also established the condition for land to be sold solely to African Americans, which generated a substantial development opportunity for the African Americans who were oppressed in Mississippi. Over time, Greenwood, Tulsa, began to develop hugely, with Greenwood Avenue hosting a cluster of luxury shops, restaurants, hotels, jewellery and clothing stores as well as offices for doctors, lawyers and dentists. Most significantly, Greenwood had its own school system, post office, a savings and loan bank, hospital and bus and taxi service. Due to African American consumers not being allowed or welcomed into White businesses, a dollar spent by residents in Greenwood would circulate thirty six to a hundred times and remain in the district for almost a year before leaving. To put this into perspective, today money leaves the African American community within six hours. They realised the power of their Black dollar and reinvested it into their own community. Despite racial discrimination and Jim Crow segregation, the Greenwood district offered proof that African American entrepreneurs were capable of creating abundant wealth. The people of Greenwood achieved with self determination a level of economic success that had never existed before in the United States, less than sixty years after the end of African American slavery. Black Wall Street was a name coined to refer to the African American community and its successes, drawing parallels with New York’s prosperous and economically developed ‘Wall Street’. The income levels of the African Americans in Tulsa was raised over the minimum wage rate, as a result of increasing prosperity.

Furthermore, in the entire state of Oklahoma, there were only two airports yet six planes were owned

by African American business people.

On May 31, 1921, the accusation about Dick Rowland led to the appearance of both races in the Tulsa courtroom. Gunshots and other forms of violence dominated the court area; however, the African Americans were outnumbered and escaped to Greenwood as a result. The White people followed them, burning down houses and firing guns. The police force also contributed to the riots: their ineffective leadership allowed mobs to gather outside the courthouses hours before additional assistance arrived. Furthermore, they actively participated in the riots by deputizing White people without discretion, arming them with guns to multiply the police force overnight. While the violence was initiated and fueled by White people, the police disregarded due process, arresting African-Americans and interning them in detention camps; meanwhile, no White people were arrested. The racial prejudice expressed by the police department led to further riots, culminating in the destruction of Black Wall Street. The underlying causes of the May 1921 massacre can be articulated to be the increased migration of African Americans to Tulsa, increasing job opportunities, and African American prosperity.

Regardless of the progress made by prominent African Americans, American capitalism is structured to keep the White segment of society ahead of the remaining marginalized many. By the 1940s the Greenwood district was rebuilt, but due to integration in the civil rights era, it never regained the same level of prominence. The fate of Black Wall Street perfectly demonstrated that as long as power remains in the hands of the aristocracy, mainly White families, America’s socioeconomic system will continue to support and advance the principals of White supremacy.

8I

Black Wall Street

Black Wall Street

I9

Class and Race: unrelated or inseparable?

Jasmin Schneider, Year 13, Gellhorn

10 IClass and Race: Unrelated or Inseperable?

Since the death of George Floyd in May of 2020, The ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement has not only resurfaced but become ever more prominent. First coined by Twitter users in 2013, the slogan delivers a powerful message of defiance. As much as the movement is about striving for equality and seeking justice from its oppressors, it is also about the acknowledgement of systemic factors that have created America’s ‘Black underclass’, and more importantly, perpetuated a system of persecution against them.

How has our past, of systems based on class exploitation, shaped the phenomena of racism and classism today? In the US, race and class are undoubtedly linked. The history of oppression of African Americans — from explicit acts of slavery and segregation, to today’s more insidious forms of racism — has created a system in which, more often than not, Black lives lose out. The world was shocked by the statistics that showed Black individuals were twice as likely to be killed by a police officer while unarmed compared to White individuals.

Higher levels of poverty, unemployment, incarceration and poorer educational outcomes for African Americans are just a few further consequences of the inequality generated by the system.

This deeply rooted history of racism has enabled some to justify the notion that Black Americans are, both socially and economically, second class citizens. The most prominent economic divides are seen in measurements of household wealth, reflecting the history of marginalisation that has made it difficult for Black people to achieve economic security. According to a Brookings Institution study from 2016, the net worth of an average White family is nearly ten times that of the average Black household, and nearly one in five Black households have debts that exceed their assets. Yet it is important to note that wealth still does not protect Black Americans against inequality. A study from the Equality of Opportunity Project found that Black boys who had grown up in some of the highest income households and neighbourhoods in the US still earned less than White boys who had grown up in similar circumstances. The same group of Black boys were also twice as likely to end up in poverty, compared to their White counterparts. Most Black individuals who start life in lower income households remain that way throughout adulthood, whilst more than two in three of their White peers will escape the poverty of their youth. Many argue that education is the key to opportunity and success, yet racial disparities persist even amongst Black individuals with the highest levels of education. It is these hard hitting facts that explain the phenomena of Black individuals having to ‘work twice as hard’ just to make ends meet.

The legacy of ill treatment of Africans had already become a way of life, which was then passed on to the next generations. The question facing many people nowadays is whether to use your ‘White privilege’ solely for personal gain or to support those who are less ‘privileged’ for the common good.

It becomes evident that, as a result of this historical prejudice and centuries of racial oppression, the foundations of inequality were built on the idea of Black individuals belonging under the powerful White man.

Over time, these ideas have also spawned classism and social inequality, which coupled with racism has rendered Black individuals powerless in changing their social status, regardless of their true background.

However, it should still be pointed out that although the relative poverty rate for Black Americans is a high 20.8%, the figure for White Americans still sits at 8.1%*. There are unquestionably other factors that have helped further polarise the class divide today for both Black and White individuals, but these are borne predominantly by individual circumstance including the issue of inheritance, educational outcomes, geographical and occupational immobility and the wider question of wealth distribution. These factors can all, in some way, contribute to the varying standards of living faced by individuals.

The events of history are, without a doubt, significant in shaping the economic and social inequalities we see amongst different communities around the world, particularly the Black community, today.

However, they are not totally to blame for the worsening issues of wealth disparity and poverty in present-day society. The Black Lives Matter movement has a number of economic goals such as reparations for slavery and disinvestment from institutions that criminalize and harm the Black community. It is also highly encouraging to see people looking to the future and calling for other measures, such as increased spending on education and social safety nets, which aim to create a more just and equitable society for everyone. At the end of the day, there is no one man we can blame for the creation and continuation of this oppressive system, no one way to dismantle class discrimination, and no one solution that will put the growing issue of racism to bed. The least we can do is acknowledge the history and facts that have come to shape today’s societal structures, and to continue to strive for a better, more just and equal one.

Still, the link between race and class can be difficult to interpret. The systems that brought slavery to the New World undoubtebly laid a pathway for the classism we see today. Turning to Africa as a continent, it is sometimes argued that their lack of economic experiments early on was due to their inability to act in their own self-interest, when really it was the consequence of European colonialism and then post independence African governments that halted their development. Take the Kingdom of Kongo in the 15th century: the reason they did not innovate or adopt agricultural technologies, such as the wheel and plow, was because they lacked the incentives to do so.

They faced the risk of having all of their output seized and taxed by the King. At the same time, many people were being captured and sold as slaves, which was hardly the environment in which to be encouraging increases in long-term productivity.

Even for the King, exporting slaves was much more profitable. Slaves were systematically oppressed, stereotyped and segregated without ever being given a chance at their own life. The abolishment of slavery in the US in 1865 was arguably far too little, too late.

I 11

Class and Race: Unrelated or Inseperable?

Could God be Blamed for Racial Inequality in America?

Vienna Kwan, Year 11, Keller In the year 2020, racial inequality still exists. Despite not presenting itself in the form of slavery or laws, it has not disappeared: it has merely shifted into other forms under a veneer of normalcy. Through the advancement into modern society, racial inequality has manifested itself in new areas: poverty, unemployment and crime just to name a few. From the recent murder of George Floyd by law enforcement to the subtle denial of education due to the colour of your skin, racial inequality is arguably still present.

What is racial inequality, in the context of the United States?

It refers to the imbalances in distribution of power, economic resources and opportunities due to one’s race. Despite the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, which led to the 13th and 14th amendment, racial inequality continues to dominate American society. One can’t help but ponder the role of God within this context, exploring how he could be involved in the racial disparities within wealth and wages to the discrimination faced in jobs and education. How could the presence of racial inequality, something that arguably contributes to evil and suffering in this world, simultaneously co-exist with an all-loving, all-powerful God? Viewing from another perspective, one could argue that racial inequality, now more than ever, is tied to the way capitalism works. Typically, billionaires thrive off the exploitation of the working class, and yet the wages are still distributed differently due to the colour of someone’s skin. For example, a white male of the working class makes around $19.23 per hour, whereas a hispanic woman makes around $12.5 per hour - which is clear evidence of systematic inequality toward both race and gender. The labour of workers improves a country’s GDP and stimulates economic development, but they (especially people of colour) are simultaneously manipulated by the inherently unequal system. As more billionaires are produced, the country prospers. However, the reality is that only by depending on these racial disparities in income, wealth, education and family structures are they able to flourish.

The origins of racial inequality is a widely discussed topic. It could be argued that one’s intransigence is an inherent trait and therefore contributes to systemic or institutionalised racism. Would this be valid seeing that many people of all races spend their life fighting for the equality of others? Many people are empathetic for those who suffer and strive to do everything in their power to make a change.

12 I

Could God Be Blamed for Racial Inequality in America

Does this not mean there is a glimmer of hope for this societal injustice? Alternatively, one could argue that racial inequality is rooted in the early years of colonialism and slavery, when colonists viewed the colonised as inferior.

As most would agree now, mercantilism was an act of greed and selfishness. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the notion of doing something for personal gain - it’s part of one’s survival instinct. However, the moral integrity of one’s action starts to disintegrate when personal gain is set at the expense of others.

What caused humans to have condoned such dire things like slave trade? Although it may seem a little far fetched at first, some people would argue it is the fault of God. But if God granted us free will as an act of omnibenevolence, then the choice to colonise or be involved in a slave trade means he should not be held accountable, seeing as these later actions have not been controlled by God. That would be paradoxical: to do so would be to contradict the notion of free will. On the other hand, if God did not grant us free will, then every choice we make is predetermined and thus racial inequality is caused

by God, posing an invisible yet significant threat on our freedoms. That is to say the nearly implausible argument is another conversation. One could say that colonisation and the slave trade have caused a series of stereotypes that still cast their shadows over American society (like suggesting a particular race has more violent tendecies), inducing antipathy and fear towards other races. Yet, this idea is not usually associated with any opinions which suggests that God bears malice. This could be reflected by the fact that even the Bible declares that there is only one race - the human race. The Bible tells us that ‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’

The God that Christians worship is certainly omnibenevolent.

That is to say they would blame any form of racial inequality on actions of the human kind - moral evil. In other words, believing humanity is the liability that should be held accountable for racial injustice.

Of course, the above argument assumes that we live in a world created by an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God. An interesting theory that could contradict this argument is this: why don’t we think there is an all powerful yet malicious creator set on wreaking havoc? The existence of the universe is used as a theodicy to prove the existence of God. William Paley once mentioned that every design must have a designer and creator, therefore our universe must have a necessary being and creator. But why do we suppose that such a creator is all good? Afterall, the presence of evil and suffering in the world does urge one to question the characteristics of God. From the past slave trades to the present social hierarchy, a world without any sort of inequality almost seems impossible.

This raises the question: if racial inequality is considered morally evil and something that threatens survival, why does it exist? Theoretically, couldn’t we agree on changing a system to eliminate disparities in order to benefit the majority? It may sound that simple, but from a pragmatic perspective, inequality can never be fully eradicated in any standard political system.

Optimistically, we could move forward into establishing a more just and free society by advocating justice and promoting equity - with or without the belief in God. Thus, it is only through human actions that equality can be achieved.

Could God Be Blamed for Racial Inequality in America

I 13

Has Political Correctness in America Gone Too Far? Amber Liu, Year 13, Keller

Among other events in this tumultuous year that is 2020, conversations surrounding race and diversity have started to loom over more and more dinner tables, both within and outside of the United States of America. However, in tandem with the amplification of voices seeking inclusivity, equality, and social justice are critics who argue that so-called political correctness has crossed the fine line between regulating hate speech and regulating free speech. *** The year is 2015. To Parisians, this foggy, -2℃ January day is just like any other.

However, on the inconspicuous street of Rue Nicolas-Appert, today could not be more different. At 11:30am, two gunmen, both of whom are known to have ties with the Islamic jihad, break into the office of the infamously controversial French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, fatally wounding 10 journalists who work there. While the motives are not immediately clear, the attack — condemned by French president Francois Hollande as a ‘terrorist attack without a doubt’ — is most likely caused by the magazine’s recent history of mockery against Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, making it a target for a certain group of radical Muslim fundamentalists, who view the magazine’s provocative depictions of their faith as blasphemous.

Widely known and revered among French journalists, the Charlie Hebdo weekly magazine has grown to become a symbol of free speech and thought, with its regular publishing of cartoons satirizing current political and religious leaders and a tone often characterized by irreverence and provocation. This 2015 attack is hardly surprising, considering the fact that one of the most prominent cartoonists and editor of Charlie Hebdo, Stephane Charbonnier, has been under police protection since 2011, when outrage at the magazine first started to devolve into violence against its members. Defiant in its aim to create and debate freely, however, the magazine continued to publish caricatures poking fun at Islam (as well as other religions), with a striking post of a naked Prophet Mohammed startling both French and American officials.1 The events that occured on that Wednesday morning of January 7 were to spark a new wave of debate2 in the USA — the ‘land of the free’ but a country beset with its own socio-political controversie nonetheless — all about political correctness (PC). *** Neither this debate nor this expression are anything new: the term political correctness, coined by Marxist-Leninists in the wake of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia3, has long been a subject of contention. Popularised in the last few decades of the 20th century, it broadly refers to an attempt to avoid language, policies or behaviour

14 I

Has Political Correctness in America Gone Too Far?

that could be offensive to disadvantaged groups. The prevalence of the term political correctness in modern-day culture can be seen in its increased profile in many aspects of 21st century life, from elite higher education to the modern workplace, from daily conversations to international and domestic journalism. Since the emergence of the term, there has been heated debate surrounding its intent and impacts.

Politically, modern liberals defend PC language and culture on the grounds that it contributes towards establishing a more “liberal” democracy — that is, an expansive view of democracy that not only involves free and fair elections of government, but also universal protection of individual civil liberties and rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, the press, and the right to equal treatment before the law. On the other end of the spectrum, PC has been attacked by centrists and conservatives alike, who criticize it for, ironically, constraining free speech. The famous political commentator and talk show comedian Bill Maher called far left PC a “cancer on progressivism” in 2019,4 and more recently in July of 2020, a group of leading professors, historians, writers, journalists, and playwrights, mostly based in the USA, cosigned a “Letter on Justice and Open Debate” for the Harper’s Magazine criticizing PC5.

Academically, there is also fervent debate on this evidently contentious topic. There are views aligned with those of Jonathan Chait, commentator and writer for New York Magazine, who argued that PC is “a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate.”6 In other words, critics believe that PC culture is dictating behavior in a way that limits open discussion with those of opposing stances, undermining free speech. Views in opposition to Chait’s include those of Richard Feldstein and Teresa Brennan, writers of the book “Political correctness: a response from the cultural left”, who agree that the term is “much disputed” but believe that its original purpose has been warped: according to them, PC was originally used by advocates themselves for the purpose of self-mockery and satire, but now political pundits of the right have twisted it into a “brainwashing campaign on an international scale” that has gained “political and psychological success”7.

But why would a term that seeks to represent equality for all and social justice draw so much fire?

A Sacramento Kings sports broadcaster is dismissed from his job of 22 years after posting a ‘politically incorrect’ tweet — ‘ALL LIVES MATTER’ — for which he later apologizes, but to no avail8; the internationally respected Ivy League Yale University is subject to the hashtag “#CancelYale” and faces petitions demanding a removal of its 319-year-old name after it is revealed that the institution’s namesake, Elihu Yale, was a British merchant and slave trader;9 Aunt Jamima, the 130-year-old syrup and pancake mix brand owned by the Quaker Oats Company, is now preparing to undergo name and logo changes due to the brand image’s ties to minstrelsy, a form of entertainment popular in early 19th century America and denounced today for its disrespectful imitations of African-American vernacular and behavior, facing outcries that this move will erase the brand’s rich history and the culture associated with its recipes10.

Recent incidents like these, triggered by the racial reckoning that has struck America, have led some to bear the sentiment that PC, specifically the behaviors permitted to flourish under its culture and ubiquitous influence, has indeed gone too far.

Before addressing the question ‘Has political correctness gone too

far?’, it is important to delve deeper into the impacts of PC not just on the wider society in America, but also on the individual — the examples given above do not suffice.

If your friend were to describe an unfamiliar person to you by first identifying their race or skin color, would you consider them to be a racist? Probably not. What the following psychological experiment11 suggests, however, is that due to the increasing societal awareness of race, especially the growing aversion to the “racist” label, and incentivized by a desire to appear as unprejudiced as possible, a “strategy” or mechanism that many people adopt is color blindness, or unwillingness to address someone’s race altogether, which may in fact be counterproductive to effective communication in certain circumstances. The research report thus ends with the conclusion that this desire to avoid appearing prejudiced is a double edged sword, one that we should be more wary of.

The Experiment: Color Blindness and Interracial Interaction Research Report In 2006, before the Charlie Hebdo shootings but at a time when PC was gradually gaining traction, professors from the Harvard Business School, Tufts University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, all based in the US, co-authored and designed two studies to explore the “ramifications of endorsing color blindness as a strategy [by Whites] for appearing unprejudiced”.

Two studies were conducted: Study 1 was carried out with the aim of unveiling the disparity between Whites’ perceived ability and their actual ability to distinguish people on the basis of race. In Study 2, the Political Correctness Game was introduced to examine the rather negative impacts of this discrepancy.

Study 1 involved 57 White student volunteers either completing a sorting task or a hypothetical task. The simple sorting task required participants to assign photographs

to each of 7 categorical dimensions: race (Black/White), gender (Male/Female), age (Over 30/Under 25), color of the background in the photo (Blue/Red), hair color (Dark/Light), facial expression (Smiling/Not smiling), and facial hair (Present/Absent). In the hypothetical task, participants were given a questionnaire asking them to imagine completing the sorting task and to rank the 7 categorical dimensions according to how quickly, or well, they believed they could assign the photographs.

The students’ response times in the sorting task were also ranked 1 to 7 for easier comparison with the hypothetical tasks’ rankings, and the results did not surprise the researchers: as expected, the White individuals underestimated the speed with which they would be able to categorize by race.

In addition, the dimension of race saw the largest difference between actual speed and perceived speed, compared to the other dimensions.

Students actually overestimated their ability to categorize by gender, which according to the authors, provided evidence that the participants had essentially “substituted a less controversial dimension — gender — for a more controversial one, race”12.

To counter the possibility that individuals are simply not aware of their capabilities of recognizing race, the same tasks were given to a group of Black individuals, and to no surprise, the results demonstrated that their estimates of how quickly they could categorize on the basis of race were significantly higher than those of their White counterparts.

The researchers thus concluded Study 1 with the conjecture that “Whites’ underestimation of [their racial categorization ability] results from a specific desire — one not shared by [the] Black participants — to appear unprejudiced.”, underscoring their reluctance to admit the extent of using race as a differentiator and thus the prevalence of color blindness as a subconscious mechanism among White individuals.

Has Political Correctness in America Gone Too Far?

I 15

Researchers continued with Study 2, the Political Correctness game, which was conducted on another group of 30 White students. In this task, essentially a game of “Guess Who?”, the students were paired up with White or Black partner and both sides were given photographs of faces from various dimensions, including race, background color, and gender; students were told to ask yes/no questions to their partners to guess the photo that they were looking at, behind a curtain.

The results from their performance were, yet again, predicted by the lab: the White participants were more likely to mention race in their line of questioning when paired with a White partner than when paired with a Black one. This tendency to avoid race with Black partners also resulted in more questions, on average, being asked, suggesting that their subconscious behavior did in fact have a negative effect on the task’s efficiency.

These studies, taken together, suggest that adopting a color-blind mindset, at best, produces mixed results, and may be more complicated than we believe. Is shunning racial differences among us really the optimal solution?

Under the influence of PC, the desire to avoid prejudice in our behavior and language is only growing. The problem, then, lies in the fact that PC and liberalism as a whole, have fundamental weaknesses which, when considered together carefully, mean that all good intentions aside, PC inevitably faces criticism, for several reasons.

First, while PC is not a social or political movement, the “cause” that it preaches is undoubtedly inclusivity and individual rights for all, which closely aligns with the ideas of liberalism. However, due to this “definition” of liberalism, PC is vulnerable to attack: by assigning correct or incorrect morals to opinions from either side, PC is detrimental to its own “cause” of freedom of speech for all, and undermines liberal values that everyone possesses a set of inalienable rights — in other words, unchallengeable rights that cannot and should not be taken away — and therefore it is not difficult to see how PC can be liable to denunciation.

This is reinforced by disagreements among liberals themselves. On the topic of hate speech, John Mearsheimer, famous American political scientist and international relations scholar, wrote that “Liberals who are absolutists regarding free speech believe it should be tolerated even if they find it abhorrent. Other liberals, however, want to ban it because it can seriously hurt those who are targeted, who have the right to be protected from verbal abuse...”13 This polarization of ideas even among liberals themselves results in a lack of universal agreement over what “individual rights” are, whether or not they are important, and which ones take precedence; because of this, liberalism, and hence PC, are even more susceptible to attack.

Thirdly, while some argue PC has been exaggerated by the right, or in fact that the “notion” of PC is a “wholesale fabrication of right wing forces designed to wrest interpretive authority away from the left”14, this is not the case: evidently, PC is still very much widespread today. Why else would editors and writers from one of America’s most respected news sources, the New York Times, speak up in recent months against the lack of diversity in the newsroom after opinion pieces from political conservatives are rejected by the company15?

While media bias and politicisation in the news is another story, what we can deduce is that the relationship between PC and its critics is a mutually disadvantageous one: the more PC dominates conversations and curtails diversity, the louder the criticism, which then results in

16 I

Has Political Correctness in America Gone Too Far?

more language and moral policing from PC advocates.

While the intentions of PC may be progressive, insofar as critics are concerned, it has gone too far. PC has and will receive more and more backlash for its “silencing” of opinions. This double edged cultural phenomenon under the umbrella term of PC is thus not conducive to liberal success in the long term due to the sheer amount of criticism it faces as well as its own contradictory nature.

Regardless, what needs to happen now is either a reckoning for a new era of politics in which PC becomes the new norm, or a reconciliation between proponents and critics of PC, which is, from observation, unlikely.

How Gerrymandering Inhibits Civil Rights Progression Stella Liu, Year 11, Keller geographic districts with at-large voting (designating members of a governing body who are elected or appointed to represent the district and its citizens). It eliminated elected positions in favour of appointed ones (that reflected less of the demographics of the area) and reconfigured state legislative districts (gerrymandering) — all in an effort to reduce the effect of the newly surging Black vote and to maintain White supremacy.

Every ten years, the United States collects census data about its population and demographics. States use the data to redraw their electoral districts; these district boundaries determine which congressmen the state elects to represent them on Capitol Hill, essentially giving state legislatures the ability to “pick the voters”. This was how Republican political strategist and gerrymandering mastermind Thomas Hoffeler described the process of gerrymandering. Diagram explaining examples of “cracking” and “packing” Gerrymandering is the manipulation of the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to favour one party or class.

Similarly, in the electoral college, when a citizen votes, they are in fact voting for an electoral college instead of their preferred candidate.

Since varying methods are used to choose the candidates of the electoral college, there may be an uneven distribution of electors in either the Democratic or Republican Party depending on the specific state. A well-known consequence of this was in the 2016 election where Hilary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, even though she received 2,900,000 more votes than the latter.

After the monumental ratification of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which replaced the southern states’ near-impossible voting qualification

tests for Black constituents with a fairer national test, the proportion of Black voters in Southern states such as Mississippi dramatically increased from 6.7% to 67.5% of the state’s voting population. Section 4 of the Act banned the unjustifiable literacy tests, which included requests (according to the civil rights movement website) such as “In the space below,”“draw three circles, one inside the other.”

Another question was “Write right from the left to the right as you see it spelled here.”, demonstrating again the fact that these questions really had no logical link to how qualified a voter is to vote. Section 5 outlawed discriminatory voting practices by preventing vote dilution, which involved nullifying the minority vote. It also required 9 states and certain areas of 7 other states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to seek approval from the federal government before making changes to voting laws.

It didn’t take long, however, for Southern politicians to find a legal loophole. They realized that while it had become nearly impossible to limit black voters’ access to the ballot box, it was still possible to curtail the power of the votes they cast.

In the years immediately following the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, a growing number of Southern jurisdictions replaced

The literacy test that was taken in Louisiana How Gerrymanding Inhibits Civil Rights Progression

I 17

In the present day, the most notable case of racial gerrymandering can be found in North Carolina, where Thomas Hofelller famously created his masterpiece in 2011. District 12 can be seen cutting through 5 other districts in order to limit the power of Black voters in the state and to help his Republican Party win as many congressional seats as possible; all the while, his maps were proven to use racial statistics. Moreover in 2019, Jowei Chan who is a professor at the University of Michigan testified that he had used the formula “%18_ap_blk” (which shows the number of African American citizens of voting age in each district) to affect the shape of the North Carolina map. His ‘masterpiece’ involved, firstly, identifying areas in Winston-Salem, Greensboro and Charlotte that were most dominated by Black communities (it is important to note that each of these three cities of North Carolina almost have enough people for their own congressional seat). North Carolina’s congressional map divided the cities between three districts that all lean Republican by including outlying areas of mostly white and Republican voters. A congressional district that included two of the three cities would be competitive for Democrats. As a result, in the 2011 election for the House of Representatives, the Democrats received 51% of the vote but only 46% of the seats were given. The same effect of gerrymandering can be seen in the election for senate where Democrats received 50% of the vote but were only given 42% of the seats.

Map of North Carolina’s Congressional Districts in 2011

Map of North Carolina’s Congressional Districts in 2020

Hoefeller’s gerrymandering resulted in the Republican-led state of North Carolina passing many controversial laws in the following years, including the HB2 law in 2016 which banned local laws that protected LGBTQ+ people from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The law also prohibited transgender people from using bathrooms and locker rooms aligning with their gender identity in schools and government buildings. Furthermore, in 2013 the General Assembly voted to repeal the entire Racial Justice Act, which prohibited seeking or imposing the death penalty on the basis of race. Since this law signified tremendous civil rights progression in a former confederate state, its repeal meant that the many years of fighting for civil rights in North Carolina was gratuitous.

Nevertheless, all of the backward momentum is constitutional. The courts struggled to define and standardize the criteria for deeming cases of redistricting as illegal, only being able to rule a few extreme cases as unconstitutional. Recently in 2019, however, in the Rucho v. Common Cause, a three-judge district court struck down North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map, ruling that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge it and that the map was the product of partisan gerrymandering (favouring one political side’s interests).

18 I

How Gerrymanding Inhibits Civil Rights Progression

The Supreme Court, in support of the district court’s ruling, ultimately decided that partisan gerrymandering was a non-justiciable political question that could be dealt with by state courts instead of involving federal courts. Following Rucho v. Common Cause, the Republican-led North Carolina government was forced to redraw its map without looking at racial and partisan data, resulting in a version that is much less biased and untouched by gerrymandering. Subsequently, the repeal to the Racial Justice Act in North Carolina was ruled unconstitutional in 2020.

To conclude, the practice of gerrymandering, racial or partisan, not only undermines the democracy that the United States prides itself on, but it also undermines the progress made in the Civil Rights Movement and the legacy of influential figures such as Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks and W.E.B Du Bois. In addition, it diminishes the historical, symbolic, and political significance of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The United States will never be a true democracy if the power that comes with each voter does not hold equal weight: progress in civil rights will be inhibited if this is the case. Unless states seek independent commissions for voters to directly choose their representatives, the effects of gerrymandering could potentially be far-reaching and detrimental to many.

How Riots and Civil Rights Go Hand in Hand Sophie Hunka, Year 13, Gellhorn “A system cannot fail those it was never designed to protect” is a quote credited to an American civil rights activist in the early to mid-1900s — William Edward Burghardt Du Bois. I came across this quote during the height of the Black Lives Matter protests in the US and thought of the irony that something said in the 1950s would still be so relevant today. The quote identifies a flaw in the status quo as the law in the US is based on a time when people of colour (POC) were considered to be inferior in the eyes of the law. An example of this is the ‘Jim Crow’ laws which were the legal segregation between black and white Americans These laws were meant to marginalise African Americans, denying them civil rights such as the right to vote or education. The Black Lives Matter Movement has been criticised by notable public figures such as the President of the United States Donald Trump and the Attorney General William Barr due to the violent nature of its ‘riots’. However, although the movement condemns and discourages such actions, I thought it would be impactful to highlight the importance of riots in history and civil rights.

For this purpose, a riot is defined as a “violent public disturbance against authority figures”. A movement may turn violent for an array of reasons, such as being provoked by said authority or frustration due to a lack of response. There are three civil rights movements that I want to highlight in this article: the women’s suffrage movement in the UK, the Stonewall Riots, and the Soweto Uprising. They have all occurred in the last hundred years, are relatively well known, and were violent movements that led to change or acted as catalysts for change.

The women’s suffrage campaign in the UK was a civil rights movement where women protested and rioted for their right to vote. It began in the year 1832 and lasted for another 96 years until 1928 when women at the age of 21 could finally vote without the need to own property, be married, or hold a position in the local government. The first petition was made by Mary Smith in 1832, arguing that women should ‘have a voice in the election of Members [of Parliament]’. This was the catalyst that started the ever-so-slow progress for women’s rights. It began with the Married Women Property Act, which allowed married women to manage their property and money.

By 1894, women could vote for their county officials. However, this was still not true equality as women were still largely viewed as inferior and did not have a say in government matters, with their role being limited to caretaker and homemaker. In 1897, there was a peaceful protest that proved unsuccessful in changing legislation. Later, in 1903, the Women Social and Political Union was formed to campaign for women’s suffrage. A protest was able to be organised by the union to protest women’s rights but a riot broke out. Some acts included the breaking of windows, throwing of rocks, and women chaining themselves to the railings of the House of Commons. Women who were arrested for these acts endured hunger strikes which caused authorities to force-feed protesters in custody. The motto ‘deeds, not words’ took over the movement and acts such as burning churches, attacking politicians, and disrupting parliament became commonplace, though they eventually died down.

It is speculated that the riots would have escalated had women not been encouraged to support the war effort. During this time, Prime Minister David Lloyd George was elected, and strides were made for the rights of women when he passed a bill in 1918 to allow women to vote at age 30, and 10 years later, in 1928, when another bill was passed to allow women to vote at age 21. It has been less than a hundred years since women have been allowed to vote equally in the UK, and although women’s rights have gone a long way, there is still progress to be made. Currently, women make up 34% of MPs in the UK’s parliament (the highest it’s ever been), despite making up 51% of the population.

In the late 1960s, the US was not widely accepting of the LGBT community, with LGBT activity being banned in almost every state.

Businesses would be shut down for having staff who identified as LGBT and bars and nightclubs would be frequently raided for LGBT members.

The Stonewall bar was no different. On June 28 1969, plainclothes police officers came to the stonewall bar and began arresting people in the club, including drag queens ‘masquerading’ as the opposite sex which was considered illegal. The police arrested a transgender woman named Storme DeLarverie, who resisted the arrest and is widely recognised as the catalyst for the riots.

How Riots and Civil Rights Go Hand In Hand

I 19

She was known throughout the community for protecting lesbians and others in the community from harassment as well as for her androgynous fashion. As she was resisting arrest and calling out for help from the crowd, the crowd began rioting. They threw bottles at the police and slashed tires. The bar was set on fire and 400 people rioted, most being young, homeless individuals who had been kicked out of their homes for being LGBT. Stonewall Bar reopened 4 days later and became a hub of LGBT activism preaching ‘gay power’. Police would regularly raid the bar and teargas those inside to disperse the crowds. The newspapers reported the event discriminatorily, with the New York Times calling it “the forces of faggotry”, which caused small protests and calls for violence outside the news building. Although no major laws were changed as a result of the Stonewall Riots, it inspired the first Pride March in 1970 and acted as a catalyst to unite the LGBT community and its fight for rights. Forty years later, LGBT people in the US still lack fundamental rights. Laws allowing LGBT marriage and prohibiting people from being fired or refused service because of their gender identity and sexuality have only recently been legalised.

However, it is still legal to refuse health care to people in the community and practice the ‘gay panic defence’. The gay panic defence is a legal argument where the defendant claims temporary insanity due to unwanted advances from someone of the same sex to excuse acts of violence. Approximately 26 transgender people have been lynched in the US last year alone. The Riots of Stonewall were an important step for the rights of LGBT people in the US but the country still has a long way to go to live up to the promise in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

The South African apartheid was institutionalised racial segregation between non-white people and white people from 1948 until early 1990. Contact between the two groups was widely limited by segregating public facilities and housing and banning marriages between the two groups. The alleged purpose of the apartheid was to allow the races to “develop independently”, but this only caused people of colour to be forced into poverty. Although there had been multiple protests against the apartheid, the most notable one seems to be the Soweto uprising. On June 16 1976, an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 black schoolchildren protested against a new law forcing children to be segregated to black schools to learn Afrikaans. The protest began peacefully and had the support of teachers and the Black Consciousness Movement,

20 I

How Riots and Civil Rights Go Hand In Hand

but the police blocked the route of the protests and sent trained dogs to attack the protestors, who responded by killing the dogs.

The police then escalated to shooting directly at the protestors, who were children. The violence continued to mount with 23 total people (mostly children) dying on the first day of the protests. On June 17, the police were heavily armed and patrolled the streets in vans, tanks, and helicopters. An example of violence from the protestors included the killing of two white people due to their being present during the protests. By the end of the second day, the government reported 23 deaths. However, it was later revealed that the true number of casualties fell between 100 and 700 people in total (including both police and children protestors). The movement gained international support due to a famous photograph of a girl carrying her brother who had been shot during the riots, which caused the United Nations Security Council to condemn the actions of South Africa. The Soweto uprising and shooting of black children caused numerous other uprisings such as the 400 white university students who protested the killing of children, a protest in Kagiso that led to the killing of 5 police officers, a fire set to the university of Witwatersrand killing 33 people in the building and more. Political and economical instability from the apartheid and protests continued until the 1990s, when the ruling government of the ‘national party’ negotiated with the African National Congress and other political groups, resulting in the first non-racial elections. These negotiations in addition to international scrutiny allowed the new government to repeal laws contributing to the apartheid. Though the apartheid has since been abolished, South Africa is still considered as being one of the most unequal countries in the world by the World Bank, which is largely due to the lasting effect of the apartheid. Areas that were set aside for POC still have a high rate of poverty with no signs of improvement, and POC still have a significantly smaller chance of having access to healthcare, electricity and a consistent water supply.

The pattern throughout all these examples of protests is that violence was a key catalyst that inspired change and raised awareness of the lack of civil rights for women, LGBT people and black people. Although protests and riots incentivise change, thus improving the civil rights of marginalised groups, it is difficult to completely eradicate the inequalities faced by these groups because, as mentioned previously, “A system cannot fail those it was never designed to protect”. Throughout all these examples, although some change was made, it still cannot be considered true ‘equality’ because these groups still face varying levels of discrimination to this day. This is not to say that we cannot try or that protests or riots should be abandoned altogether. We, as a society, need to continue to listen to these groups, believe in their struggles, and advocate for changes in the system to decrease the inequality they experience every day. As the political activist Elie Wiesel once said, “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

How Riots and Civil Rights Go Hand In Hand

I 21

India Under the British Empire: The Story of Repression and the Fight for Independence Rehan Rosha, Year 13, Churchill

British involvement in Indian affairs started as far back as 1615 when the East India Company (EIC) acquired its first territory in Bombay (present-day Mumbai). For its first century in India, the EIC was not concerned with the idea of building an empire there; instead, it was focused on trade within India and amongst the surrounding South-East Asian countries. However, the 18th century saw the gradual decline of the ruling Mughal Empire, causing the EIC to shift its focus from trade to territory. The following decades saw them rapidly gain and rule large areas of land throughout the subcontinent, either directly or indirectly, using excessive military force. The EIC started its rule over India in 1757, and by 1818, it stood as the largest governing force in India with its very own army and judiciary, functioning as a sovereign power on behalf of the British Crown.

In 1833, the British Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act, which abolished slavery in the British Empire and compensated slave owners for the economic blow this caused. However, the act conveniently left out slavery under the East India Company. Sources suggest that the EIC began transporting and using slave labour in 1620, but this ended with the Indian Slavery Act of 1843. This act was passed under the EIC, outlawing slavery and economic transactions associated with it.

As a result, the EIC stopped transporting slaves and instead started transporting indentured labourers, workers within a system of unfree labour who were bound by a forced contract (indenture). The Indian indenture system allowed two million Indians to be transported and used for slave labour around the world. The EIC alone exported over a million Indian indentured labourers to British, Dutch, and Portuguese colonies, as well as to South Africa and Trinidad & Tobago. The Indian indenture system was finally banned in 1917, long after the EIC began profiting from it. Shockingly, The Economist stated that the reason for the ban was “because of pressure from Indian nationalists and declining profitability, rather than from humanitarian concerns”.

Fortunately, the EIC was dissolved in 1858 by the British government as a direct result of the Indian Rebellion of 1857. The rebellion is another example of the EIC, and Britain as a whole, violating the civil and human rights of Indians. Although both sides committed tragic atrocities, many sources note how the retaliation from the EIC was significantly worse and more gruesome than the acts committed by the Indian rebels. The EIC responded to the massacres of British women and children with acts of torture as well as sexual assault.

In areas of Northern India, sources put the death toll of Indians at around 150,000, 100,000 of which were civilians. Some sources even state that British troops forced many Muslim or Hindu rebels to eat pork or beef. From this, we can see that the state of civil rights under the EIC was appalling. However, the 1858 Government of India Act passed by the Parliament meant that the British government still had the right to govern India, under the British Raj.

22 I

India Under the British Empire

The British Raj presided over India until 1947 (when India achieved independence). In this period of time, the British Raj helped advance India’s infrastructure; For example, in 1860, universities in Bombay (Mumbai), Madras (Chennai), and Calcutta were built. Additionally, railways previously built by the EIC were extended, and the construction of new canals and irrigation systems boosted the economy and the quality of life in those areas.

However, rule under the British Raj was not all positive. During the First World War, the Governor-General of India passed the Defence of India Act in 1915. The act was an emergency criminal law to reduce and prevent nationalist and revolutionary activities. The act provided the executive with frighteningly broad powers: For example, they could imprison citizens without a fair trial, and restrict the writings, speech, and movement of any Indian, both of which were clearly violations of several fundamental and inalienable civil rights. If there were any positive impacts of this act, it would be that it brought Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi into the mainstream of the Indian struggle for independence.

The act was succeeded by the infamous Rowlatt Acts, also known as the Black Act, which indefinitely extended the aforementioned executive powers, worsening the civil situation in India. The purpose of this act was similar to the previous one, in that it was used to curb the rapidly growing nationalist sentiments throughout India. It did this by allowing the police to arrest anybody without having to provide a reason, imprison any person suspected of terrorism for up to two years without any trial, control the press, search any facility or home and carry out arrests without warrants, and place indefinite detentions without trial. If there were to be a trial, there would be no jury, and the accused was not allowed to know who the accuser was or what evidence was being presented, completely disregarding the idea of the right to a fair trial. In addition, those who were convicted were not allowed to take part in any political, educational, or religious activities whatsoever.

On 13 April 1919, Acting Brigadier-General Reginald Dwyer, convinced that there could be an uprising very soon, banned all meetings and gatherings. However, that information did not travel very far. Later that day, thousands of people gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh to celebrate the Sikh and Hindu festival of Baisakhi, and to peacefully protest the arrest and deportation of Satyapal and Saifuddin Kitchlew, two national leaders. Unfortunately, Dyer saw this as a threat and surrounded Jallianwala Bagh with his troops, blocking most of the exits. He then ordered his men to fire without warning, sending 1,650 bullets into a group of unarmed protesters. Although no detailed casualty count was carried out, a social services society estimated that at least 379 people died, with around 1,100 injured and 192 seriously injured. However, the Indian National Congress puts the death toll at 1,000 with 1,500 injured. Dyer’s actions were lauded by those who profited from the British Raj.

India Under the British Empire

I 23

This included many members of the House of Lords and even Rudyard Kipling who stated that Dyer “did his duty as he saw it”. Nevertheless, Dyer was widely denounced by the House of Commons, causing them to censure him the following year. The massacre restrained the British Army and caused it to develop less violent tactics for crowd control and use minimal force when they could. Britain is yet to formally apologise for the massacre, although they expressed “regret” in 2019.

Since 1882, the British Raj prohibited any Indian from collecting or selling salt, a staple ingredient in their diets. Instead, they had to buy it from the empire at incredibly high prices, with a very heavy tax also imposed on the mineral. As a response to this, Gandhi organised a peaceful protest, a satyagraha in Hindi. On March 2, 1930, Gandhi and his followers marched from Ahmedabad to the coastal town of Dandi, covering around 240 miles, with the intent of collecting salt from the ocean as a form of civil disobedience against the salt monopoly held by the British Raj. During the march, Gandhi addressed large crowds as more and more Indians marched with him. By the time the group reached Dandi, Gandhi had amassed a following of tens of thousands of Indians, all peacefully marching to the salt flats.

This march inspired millions of Indians all over the sub-continent to engage in their own satyagrahas and peacefully protest against British rule. During this time, the British Raj arrested over 60,000 protesters, with Gandhi himself being arrested on May 5, 1930. However, this did not quell the protests. On May 21, Sarojini Naidu, a female Indian poet, led a group of 2,500 protesters to the Dharasana Salt Works in Gujarat. Once they arrived, they were turned away by the police, causing the protesters to sit down for 28 hours, even as hundreds of them were being arrested. Naidu said to her followers “You must not use any violence under any circumstances. You will be beaten, but you must not resist: you must not even raise a hand to ward off blows”, echoing the peaceful and anti-violent sentiment carried out

by Gandhi. However, later that day, the protesters tried to pull away the fencing surrounding the salt pans. This caused the police to react violently, clubbing and whipping the protesters. American journalist Webb Miller was an eyewitness to the retaliation, and in his report he wrote: “Not one of the marchers even raised an arm to fend off the blows. They went down like ten-pins. From where I stood I heard the sickening whacks of the clubs on unprotected skulls. …

Those struck down fell sprawling, unconscious or writhing in pain with fractured skulls or broken shoulders. In two or three minutes the ground was quilted with bodies. Great patches of blood widened on their white clothes. The survivors without breaking ranks silently and doggedly marched on until struck down.” This report was initially censored by the British government, but was allowed to pass after Miller threatened to expose the censorship. Eventually, the report appeared in 1,350 newspapers around the world. After the protest, the Viceroy of India wrote the following in a letter to King George: “Your Majesty can hardly fail to have read with amusement the accounts of the severe battles for the Salt Depot in Dharasana. The police for a long time tried to refrain from action. After a time this became impossible, and they had to resort to sterner methods. A good many people suffered minor injuries in consequence.” This incident left many questioning the legitimacy and intent of the British Raj, with many historians believing that this was one of the final nails in their coffin.

Now comes the time where I must criticise the beloved Harrovian, Sir Winston Churchill, for his actions leading up to and causing the Bengal famine of 1943. Between January and July of 1943, Churchill and his War Cabinet diverted tonnes of wheat and rice away from the starving Indians in Bengal (present-day eastern India and Bangladesh) and instead used those resources to increase already large stockpiles in Europe. Ships filled with wheat from Australia were also diverted away from India and directed to the Mediterranean and Balkans to fill up buffer stocks in the event of an invasion in Greece and Yugoslavia.

Further east of Bengal was Japanese-occupied Burma (present-day Myanmar). To prevent a possible invasion by Japanese forces, Churchill carried out a scorched earth policy, where the police seized and destroyed rice stocks, removed ships from eastern harbours and prevented any more ships from docking and unloading cargo. This heavily exacerbated an already terrible famine. Churchill commented the following about the famine: “I hate Indians. They are beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits”. Soon, British officials took note of the famine and quickly wrote to Churchill, notifying him that it was his policies that were causing the famine. As a response, Churchill wrote on the margin of the report “Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?”, a grim reflection of how the British government felt about the famine and India as a whole. At the time, the two leading newspapers in India, The Statesmen and Amrita Bazar Patrika, were told to “calm public fears about the food supply” and keep in line with the official statement from the British Raj that there was no rice shortage. There was incredibly strict censorship - newspapers couldn’t even use the word ‘famine’.

The Statesman later remarked that the British Raj and UK government as a whole “seems virtually to have withheld from the British public knowledge that there was a famine in Bengal at all”. However, in August of 1943, The Statesman began publishing very graphic images of the true situation and The Guardian even called the situation “horrible beyond description”. The British Raj was not allowed to use its sterling reserves or its own ships to buy and import food, and requests for food aid from the British Raj were constantly shut down

by Churchill and the War Cabinet. However, they did allow a relatively small supply of wheat specifically for western India (not Bengal) in exchange for rice shipments from Bengal to Ceylon (present-day Sri Lanka). All this inaction, animosity, and hatred towards India created one of the worst famines of all time, leaving a death toll of up to 4 million Indians, and an indelible stain on the most celebrated figure of the 20th century.

Thankfully, Gandhi led India to independence from the British only four years later, putting a final end to the involvement of Britain in Indian affairs. In 1947, the British government partitioned India into 3

24 I

India Under the British Empire

separate sections - India, West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan), and East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh). This partition was based on religion, with the Muslim population going to the two Pakistans, while the Hindu population stayed in India. Although the partition itself was a large controversy and led to even more death, that is a story for another day.

The history of British involvement in India spans more than 300 years.

Even today, there are debates about whether or not the United Kingdom should pay reparations or apologise for their acts of injustice.

As of now, there has yet to be a formal apology. However, I don’t think the UK needs to apologise or pay any financial compensation.

Instead, the UK government needs to acknowledge the unjust and inhumane actions carried out by the British Raj and the British Empire around the world. There needs to be a clear recognition of this era in history, rather than dismissal of events and falsification of facts.

Ultimately, the UK is responsible for what happened, but that doesn’t mean the sins of the past must be repaid today. The time for that is long gone — we cannot force today’s Britain to tend to the wounds created by the Britain over 70 years ago. However, there are other ways in which we can begin to acknowledge what happened and move on. For example, the British Empire as a whole could be taught in UK schools so that future generations can better understand the history of their country and of the world, instead of pretending that it never happened.We must recognise our history and learn from it. Otherwise, how far we can progress as a society is incredibly limited.

India Under the British Empire

I 25

Is History repeating itself?

An outline of police brutality in the USA

By Sophie Ho and Se Lyn Lim, Year 12, Wu

26 I

Is History Repeating Itself?

A glimpse into racial injustice and police brutality in the USA The past has always laid a foundation, leaving it up to the present to build upon and to develop a desirable future. But have we been successful in this? Perhaps in some ways yes, although other parts of our society continue to deteriorate. One of these parts is the lack of balance in the world: racial injustice continues to persist. Greater change is needed to right our wrongs, but history has taught us that we do not learn from the past. This raises the questions: Is society trapped in a cycle of discrimination? And is history repeating itself?

This article will take a look at how police brutality has emerged; examples of the unjust system throughout the years and during the Civil Rights Movement, and will zoom in on racist police incidents in the 21st century.

Looking at a recent incident, on May 25, 2020, George Floyd was arrested on charge of passing a counterfeit 20 dollar bill at a grocery store in Minneapolis and refusing to return his purchased cigarettes.

During the arrest, Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, pressed his knee onto Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, killing him.

Floyd’s death ignited a new wave of protests and demonstrations against police brutality across America and the world. Nonetheless, this is only one example of the injustices inflicted on African Americans. Since 2015, 1,308 lives have been lost this way, and the numbers continue to rise. Innocent minorities are still falling victims to prejudice, racism and inhumanity.

How US history has shaped today’s police brutality Looking back in history, the earliest roots of American policing targeting African Americans date back to the early 18th century. In South Carolina, White volunteers established slave patrols, which involved capturing and terrorising runaway slaves in order to prevent revolts.

Despite the ratification of the 13th amendment in 1865, slavery was not entirely abolished. It was legally permitted if the situation involved “punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”. Not only did those last few words in the 13th amendment act as significant barriers to freedom in the years following, they also laid the foundation for police brutality and “tough on crime” policies today. For example, “involuntary servitude”, or slavery, can be freely imposed on incarcerated individuals.

In the late 19th century, police enforced Jim Crow laws, which made segregation in many aspects of life legal. This was followed by a dramatic rise in lynchings and mob-murders of African-Americans. In 1933, sociologist Arthur F. Rapper reported that, “At least one-half of the lynchings are carried out with police officers participating, and that in nine-tenths of the others the officers either condone or wink at the mob action.”

In the 1960s, during the Civil Rights Movement, there were multiple incidents of police brutality. The era was abundant in violent and destructive riots, despite the leaders’ hopes for peaceful protests.

During the March on Birmingham in 1963, the police and fire department used force to halt demonstrations. They blasted over a thousand African-American students with high-pressure hoses and used dogs to launch ferocious attacks. Furthermore, in the Selma marches of 1965, known as the infamous “Bloody Sunday”, a blockade of state troopers and local lawmen attacked the marchers with tear gas and clubs. Police even chased some of the retreating crowd and continued to beat them, leaving them with vicious injuries.

The Black Panther party was formed in 1966 to challenge police brutality, but it too was targeted with violence by the FBI, and its leaders were assassinated by police officers.

During the anti-war demonstrations in the 60s to 70s, there were increasing cases of police brutality. Practices such as stop and frisk - where people were stopped to be searched for weapons or prohibited items - as well as groups of elite police who specialised in high risk tasks, also known as SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) teams were put in place. These teams of police targeted minorities in particular, emphasised by events such as the infamous Detroit Riots of 1967. The immediate cause was a police raid targeted at an illegal after-hours drinking club, where they arrested all in attendance of a welcome-home party for two Vietnam War veterans, including 82 African-Americans. A series of aggressive confrontations followed suit. Local residents protested, through different ways such as looting businesses and vandalising property. However, it can also be argued that deeper causes of their protests included ongoing frustrations toward unemployment, poverty, lack of opportunity, police brutality and last but not least, racism. In the next few days, over 9,000 of the National Guard were deployed, as well as 800 Michigan state police and US Army troops. It resulted in the deaths of 43 people, in which 33 were African-American. More than 7,000 people were arrested, and most of them were black.

Police misconduct was also prevalent in the War of Drugs, a government-led initiative to stop illegal drug use by increasing prison sentences. The Rockefeller Drug Laws of 1973 created a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 15 years to life for possession of four ounces of drugs. However, these misguided laws disproportionately impacted the law enforcement’s focus on minorities. Incarceration rates became reflective of lower income areas and communities of colour, rather than increased drug use. Although both whites and African-Americans used and sold drugs at similar rates, African-Americans were over six times more likely to be incarcerated for drug-related charges.

A quote from Nixon’s aide John Ehrlichman explains: “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people... We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either... but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.”

Racism in the 21st century Taking it back to the present, there have been numerous incidents of racism in the 21st century. George Floyd is only one of the countless victims of racism. In 2012, Trayvon Martin, an African American 17 year old was visiting relatives in Florida, when Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch coordinator, called 911 to report “a suspicious person”. Zimmerman ignored the instructions, approached an unarmed Martin, and shot him, claiming it was self-defence. When officers arrived, Martin was already dead. 2 years later in 2014, Tamir Rice, an African American 12-year-old boy, was killed in Cleveland, Ohio by police officer Loehmann seemingly for carrying a replica toy Airsoft gun.

Loehmann shot him almost immediately after arriving at the scene.

All of them had their lives taken away against their will at the hands of the police, all because of the color of their skin. Martin’s murderer Zimmerman walked away without charges on second-degree murder;

Is History Repeating Itself?

I 27

Rice’s murderer Loehmann was cleared and his response was even deemed “a reasonable one” by a retired FBI agent; Floyd’s murderers were placed on paid administrative leave before being fired on the same day. It took a week for Chauvin (the police who was involved in killing Floyd) to be charged with second-degree murder, and the three officers involved to be charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder. The three officers were released on bail a few weeks later.

Parallels can be drawn between public responses towards their deaths.

In the wake of the deaths, protests and public outcries broadcasted through international media coverage have attracted worldwide attention. In spite of that, their differences are what sets them apart, highlighting the ongoing changes as time passes. After Rice’s death, people protested in the local areas of Cleveland, albeit relatively minor. After Martin’s death, protests had grown nationwide, with walkouts staged by high school students and thousands attending rallies. Protest symbols associated with Martin were also donned, such as hoodies, bags of Skittles candy and cans of Arizona Iced tea.

Professional athletes and high-profile citizens such as LeBron James also showed their support. Over 2.2 million people signed a Change. org petition, calling for Zimmerman’s arrest, reflecting the increase of involvement. After Floyd’s death, protests quickly spread worldwide, with over 60 countries internationally supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. However, with the increase in support came an increase in violence. Demonstrations descended into looting and riots.

Police brutality was once more shown through the police’s aggressive use of tear gas, flash grenades, smoke bombs and rubber bullets.

What now?

There have been many changes throughout the years. The Civil Rights Movement has paved the way to more laws being passed, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Housing Act of 1968. The movement ended segregation in public facilities, banned employment discrimination, increased federal protection and greatly increased activism. The question we must be asking ourselves now, is how will we change? Perhaps at present, more than ever, there is hope for fairness in the system, for liberation and justice in society. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement is surging forward. Support is being shown in many ways: we are raising awareness through the media, signing petitions, organising and taking part in protests and demonstrations.

Changes have also been prevalent in the causes of police brutality, which has shifted throughout the past century. Whilst, at least on the surface, police brutality has been seemingly caused by labor strikes and public unrest, it has evolved into deeper aspects today. Police culture plays an important role in corruption, such as the “blue wall of silence” where officers do not report abuse or misconduct committed by fellow officers. More laws have also been passed, granting federal protection to police and giving them an unfair advantage in legal proceedings. A clear example of this is the 50-a in New York (which was repealed in 2020) in which performance and misconduct records of officers have been hidden from the public. Qualified immunity has also provided them with an upper hand, as it often protects them from prosecution if they haven’t violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. These are just a few examples of causes that have gradually taken root in society. But with the rise of civil rights movements and increase in activism, perhaps this can be changed.

So, we return to the question: is history repeating itself? Although history is not literally “repeating” itself, it is clear that throughout

28 I

Is History Repeating Itself?

the years, parallel events have occured. Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. As Mark Twain has said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

We need to change. In a world where the balance is constantly shifting, will good ever outweigh evil? The problem lies in the unjust police system and the racist attitude towards African Americans. The innocent victims should not be forgotten in the cracks of history. The truth should not be concealed. Hope lies in our current generation.

Humanity has to move forward as one, and we must fight for African American rights and against the abuse of power. Only then, can we look towards a better future for our society. We hope that there will come a time when no one - no matter their race, religion, gender or sexuality - will have to live in fear.

Most Influential Speeches and Songs from the Civil Rights Movement Jolie Chan, Year 11, Wu The Civil Rights Movement is remembered for the massive social and political change it brought about, but it is through the speeches and songs that are still studied and sung today that allow us to access this unique period of history. In this article we will look at the speeches and songs from the civil rights movement that still hold much influence after all these years and resonate with every activist. *** The speeches made during the civil rights movement are some of the most inspirational and motivational ones in the history of protests.

The words spoken by historical figures like Martin Luther King inspired people to join their cause and motivated them to keep on fighting for what they believed. Here are some of the most thought-provoking speeches given during the civil rights movement: “The Negro citizens of our common country, are determined that the verdict at Appomattox will not be renounced, that the clock will not be turned back, that they shall enjoy what is’ justly theirs”

The Clock Will Not Be Turned Back by Roy Wilkins was a speech made in California, 1957, in response to the Little Rock Crisis. Roy Wilkins was a leader of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) and one of the most recognizable figures during the civil rights movement. This speech was made to address the Commonwealth Club of California after mobs attempted to prevent nine African American students from entering Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The then governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, ordered the Arkansas National Guard troops to keep the students out despite racial segregation in public education being a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. This prompted President Eisenhower to send federal troops to protect the students from the Arkansas National Guard. The school has since been desegregated by a court order resulting from the 1954 landmark case, Brown v. Board of Education. In this speech, Wilkins spoke not only about the crisis facing African Americans, but also about the future of the United States during the Cold War. This speech was very influential during its time as it marked the start of racially integrated education in the United States and the beginning of unthreatened African American school presence.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

I Have A Dream by Martin Luthur King was delivered on August 28th, 1963, during the March on Washington. The speech was a call for equality and freedom for African Americans and quickly became one of the defining moments of the civil rights movement. The Civil Rights Act was being discussed in Congress when this speech was given; the speech sought to oppose racial discrimination and encourage the passage of the civil rights legislation. The original written version of the speech is not the one we now know: As he neared the end of the speech, King quickly abandoned his planned script and launched into a discussion about his dream. These inspiring improvisations struck a chord with the crowd, many of whom called out words of encouragement at the emotional conclusion. Thanks to King’s improvisations, this speech is now highly regarded for its power and resonance.

The first segment of this speech was masterfully delivered but it was the second half of this speech that people still recognise 50 years later. ‘I have a dream’ also became an enduring phrase worldwide as this speech helped massively in securing the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. This was arguably the most influential speech made during the civil rights movement and even during American history as a whole, revealing the power of rhetoric.

“Their cause must be our cause too. Because it’s not just Negros, but really it is all of us, of biogotry and injustice. And we shall overcome.”

We Shall Overcome by President Lyndon B. Johnson was a speech that was inspired by the unofficial anthem We Shall Overcome (we will discuss this song later in the article). The phrase ‘we shall overcome’ was borrowed from African American advocates of racial equality.

This speech was made on March 15th, 1965, approximately a week after the violence and devastation caused by the police during the Selma March for equality in voting rights in Alabama (now known as Bloody Sunday). The voting rights discrimination that African Americans faced came in the form of literacy, knowledge or character tests which white Americans did not have to take, reducing the number of eligible African American voters. However, both of the first two attempts of the Selma march were stopped by the local police, once violently. More than 50 marchers were hospitalised and Massachusetts Unitarian minister James J. Reeb died from his wounds. The marchers finally succeeded during their third attempt and the event gained worldwide news coverage. This speech was very influential as not only did it signify that the president was in support of the movement, it also incorporated elements from African American history, such as the title We Shall Overcome, taken from a civil rights anthem song.

“Is this America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where we have to sleep with our telephones off the hooks because our lives be threatened daily, because we want to live as decent human beings, in America?”

Credentials Committee Testimony by Fannie Lou was given in Atlantic City, New Jersey, on August 22nd, 1964. Lou was the youngest of twenty children born to sharecroppers in Mississippi, where she had spent much of her life picking cotton until she was fired for trying to register to vote. This invoked her to join the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. In 1964, she ran for Congress as a Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party candidate against Democratic incumbent Jamie L. Whitten. While she was giving testimony, she recounted her experience: being stopped by the police after trying to register to vote, being fired from her job, and having 16 bullets shot into her friend’s home after she stayed there as a warning. She then described her experience in a Mississippi jail, having been arrested for climbing onto a bus. She was repeatedly beaten and sexually harassed by White jailers. President Johnson sent advisors to Atlantic city to fix ‘the Mississippi problem’, but despite his efforts, Lou’s testimony was broadcasted during prime time on the evening news. This speech was very powerful as it elucidated the prevalence of racism to the American public and forced them to acknowledge the severity of the problem. *** Most Influential Speeches and Songs from the Civil Rights Movement

I 29

30 I

Most Influential Speeches and Songs from the Civil Rights Movement

Music is often used to unify people and keep morale high during times of uncertainty and change. Here are some of the most powerful songs that sustained people through hardships, setbacks and failures during the 1960s and helped them win the victories that moved America closer to racial equality.

The Selma March by Grant Green is an upbeat, instrumental jazz piece. Although it does not have lyrics, it clearly expresses exaltation for the third Selma March’s completion. The march led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, explaining the celebratory nature of this piece. This piece was influential because it denoted a step closer to achieving equal voting rights for all peoples of the United States and the possibility of more pro-civil rights politicians in office.

“And the young people taught everybody else a lesson; all the older people that had learned how to compromise.”

We Shall Overcome was popularised by Pete Seeger and quickly became the unofficial anthem for the Civil Rights movement. It is neither a marching song nor a defiant song; rather, it is a promise that one day ‘we [African Americans] will overcome’ the obstacle of racial inequality. This piece started as a folk/work song that slaves would sing while working. The first political use of this song was in 1945 in Charleston, South Carolina; workers marched together demanding a pay raise while singing the infamous line ‘We will overcome, and we will win our rights someday.’ This is the song that sustained the African American community through struggles during the Civil Rights movement, especially when fellow protesters and demonstrators were beaten, arrested or detained during their fight for racial equality. A melody that rose in air tinged with tear gas, a murmur in the homes of African Americans, and an affirmation sung by hundreds of thousands within sight of the Capitol dome, this song united people in whatever situation they were thrown into.

This idea can be used as a powerful tool in times where unity between people is needed. *** In this article, we have explored the songs and speeches from the Civil Rights Movement, but what about the current Black Lives Matter movement? Songs like This is America

by Childish Gabino, I Can’t Breathe by H.E.R, Black Parade by Beyonce and many more have embodied the message that the Black Lives Matter movement has been trying to convey.

Speeches made by people like John Boyega, Alicia Garza, Aretha Johnson and many more also carry inspirational and motivational messages. When John Boyga addressed racism in a rally in London, he stated that he doesn’t care if he loses his career if it meant that he could speak out about this social crisis at the moment. He told his fellow protesters that ‘Black lives have always mattered, we have always been important. We have always meant something. We have always succeeded regardless.

And now is the time. I ain’t waiting.’

The Civil Rights Movement undoubtedly produced some of history’s most influential speeches. Similarly, it is undeniable that the songs and speeches sung and spoken around the world right now will be studied and sung years from now. The ability of words to hold sway over the landscape of history and to shape it has never been more evident.

“Just like a tree that’s standing by the water side, we shall not be moved.”

We Shall Not Be Moved, adapted by Mavis Staples, is a variant of the traditional folk song I Shall Not Be Moved. Like We Shall Overcome, it became a staple marching song during the Civil Rights Movement. The song stemmed from a biblical verse and was later adapted into a hymn, a protest anthem and a folk song (like most folk songs, the precise history of this song is unknown but we do know that the first line of the first edition of this song was from the book of Jermiah). Although some of the lyrics of this song often get lost in translation, the main idea –– that a firmly rooted tree cannot be moved –– still remains in all of the variations.

Most Influential Speeches and Songs from the Civil Rights Movement

I 31

LGBT History Outside the Western World Sophie Hunka, Year 13, Gellhorn Most sources seem to agree that Generation Z (born between 1996 and 2010) is the “gayest” generation, with about 50% supporting gay marriage in comparison to the 27% support rate of earlier generations, such as the Boomers. Some sources also claim that only about two-thirds of Generation Z (Gen Z) identify as strictly straight. This is probably due to the decreased importance of religion in society and the increase in knowledge and acceptance of the LGBT community, which is often aided by the internet. Some still insist that being LGBT is unnatural, arguing that there are a lack of non-heterosexual precedents in Western history. So in this article, I will explore LGBT history in cultures not considered “Western”, specifically Chinese and Native American culture, in order to demonstrate that the LGBTQ community has been consistent in ancient cultures.

The gay emperors and kings of China It may be surprising, but the very conservative China has a long history of same-sex attraction.

However, China has greater documentation of MLM (men loving men) relationships compared to WLW (women loving women) relationships because it is a very patriarchal society. Prior to the Qing rule, homosexual and heterosexual love were both accepted, with same-sex attraction even being considered “trendy” amongst the Qin dynasty elite. Emperor Ai from the Han dynasty, who ruled between 1 BCE and 7 BCE, is a famous example of a “non-straight” ruler of China. Although Emperor Ai had a wife and female concubines, he also had a male partner named Dong Xian who slept in his bed.

The story of Dong falling asleep on top of the Emperor’s sleeve and the Emperor cutting off his sleeve to avoid waking him inspired the idiom “the passion of the cut sleeve” (斷袖 之癖), which subsequently inspired the term “cut-sleeves” being used to refer to gay relationships in the modern day. Another famous example of a same-sex relationship is the one between King An Xi and Lord Long Yang. King An Xi of Wei, who ruled from 276 BC to 243 BC, had a courtier named Long Yang with whom he often went fishing. Once, while fishing, Long Yang began to cry and said, “I was happy when I just caught one fish, but after I caught those bigger fish, I wanted to throw away the small fish. I am lucky to sleep on the same bed with the king today. However, within the four seas, there are many pretty girls. If they know I am spoiled by the king, they will use different ways

32 I

LGBTQ History Outside the Western World

to seduce Your Majesty, and I will be abandoned just like those tiny fish. How could I not cry?” The King responded by saying, “Within these four seas, whoever dares to introduce me to a pretty girl, I will exterminate their clan.

Thus, the idiom “Longyang’s affection” (龍陽 之癖), which represents homosexuality, was born. While same-sex attraction was commonplace in ancient China, it was eventually criminalised during the Qing dynasty (17th century) and labelled as a mental disorder in the 1950s.

And although it was decriminalised in 1997, seeing public opinion becoming increasingly tolerant of the community, same-sex couples are still unable to get married or adopt children in Mainland China.

Two-Spirit The term “two-spirit” is an umbrella term in the indigenous American and Canadian community for those who fulfil a third gender or gender variant role in their culture. Often, each community has its own name for the phenomenon, examples being Ihamana (male-bodied people who take on a feminine ceremonial role) in the Zuni tribe, and cree or iskwêhkân (one who acts or lives as a woman) and sipiniq (an infant whose sex changes at birth) in the Inuit community. The terms “two-spirited”and “transgender” are not meant to be used interchangeably; the former is rooted in indigenous culture and evokes beliefs unique to the community. In some Native American cultures, it is believed that the spirit of a child has to choose between a bow (male) or a basket (female), and those who pick the tool that doesn’t match their biological sex or picks both tools are a part of this third gender and fall under this two-spirit label. Another belief is that the third gender is just part of the balance of nature. In some tribes, such as the Mojave tribe, being two-spirited allowed individuals to fulfil specific roles such as healers or ceremonial leaders. This was not the case for all tribes, but it can be generally remembered that two-spirited people were widely accepted.

Sadly, the beginning of the pervasive mistreatment of two-spirited people began when the Europeans arrived and began colonising the Native Americans. Some colonisers, such as the Spanish missionaries, would force two-spirited people who were biologically females to wear feminine clothing and two-spirited people who were biologically men were forced to cut their hair short. Children of indigenous communities would also be sent to government schools to

be “re-educated” and forced to denounce their own culture. is not a lot of information on the topic today.

Some two-spirited people would be thrown into pits with dogs to be torn apart while others committed suicide to avoid this fate. Currently, being two-spirited is an identity that indigenous people are attempting to reclaim. During colonisation, there was an attempt to eradicate the culture and history of Native Americans, especially those who identified as two-spirited, which partly explains why there is not a lot of information on the topic today.

What happened?

The existence of those who do not conform to heterosexuality or their assigned sex (in other words, being LGBT) has been documented and accepted in most ancient communities, so what happened?

Truth be told, it is difficult to pinpoint a single reason to explain why the LGBT community has been associated with negative ideologies.

It may have been the rise of multiple religions, which condemned it over history and its influence on other cultures; all three major religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) all condemned homosexuality. However, the core values of each of these religions are love and peace, so it is difficult to directly link LGBT discrimination to their fundamental principles. Another possible reason for this widespread discrimination towards LGBT people among the spiritual is that they view reproduction as an essential component of life, a belief that automatically shuns the acceptance of non-conformists.

Ancient cultures had accepted and even celebrated LGBT identities to a large extent, which demonstrates that the LGBT community can be an integrated part of society, coexisting with religious interpretations. It has taken generations for acceptance of the community to be lost within society, but with each generation, and greater access to the information and awareness, acceptance and integration of the LGBT community is already more prevalent than it was before.

The Impact of Civil Rights on the Roman Empire Hanson Wen, Year 9, Peel The Roman Empire lasted from 27 BC to 1453 AD (1480 years) and conquered almost half of Europe and parts of Africa. It had an area of 4.4 million km² at its maximum. That’s about 20 UK’s.

But how could such a massive empire disappear? Personally, I think that the civil rights of Romans had a significant effect on the empire’s collapse.

The Nerva-Antonine Dynasty marked the beginning of the Golden Age of the Roman Empire. Everything was peaceful and pleasant until the last emperor of the dynasty, Marcus Aurelius, gave his inheritance to his natural son, Commodus. Past emperors had been chosen from Romans within the whole kingdom to be taken as the current emperor’s adopted children, and are trained to acquire the necessary skills. But Marcus Aurelius didn’t do that. He was a wise emperor and philosopher, but he had lost his first two sons, so he wanted to give his third son something - his inheritance.

It meant that unlike the other heirs, Commodus did not pass any sort of test of experience, which made him ill-suited for his role as emperor. He caused chaos in the empire and was killed by his Praetorian Guard (an emperor’s bodyguard). From then on, army leaders started to fight for the place of the emperor.

The last emperor to seize power in the second century was Septimius Severus. Because he had experience in fighting for control, he knew the need for a capable army, so he disassembled the original Praetorian Guard and formed a group mostly made up of powerful northern barbarians. But before his rule, only Romans and Italians could join the Praetorian Guard.

Other than the power of the army, Severus also knew the need for loyalty, so he started giving the soldiers six to eight times the money that Caesar and Augustus gave. Additionally, he gave the army power. Some of them even started to have law courts outside of the Roman system, which greatly affected the prestige of the empire.

The Impact of Civil Rights on the Roman Empire

I 33

After Severus died, his natural son, Caracalla, issued an edict that granted full Roman citizenship to every person that was born in the Roman Empire. This changed the empire significantly. Before the edict was released, the whole Roman system had been organised in a way such that people who lived in areas that were conquered by the Roman Empire would be in a lower social class (less civil rights) than the Romans. However, you could apply for Roman citizenship by serving the empire, for example, by joining the army and making a contribution; your master could just decide to give you one; or you could just bribe your way in. The reason that the whole Roman system did not collapse was that there was hope for social mobility.

However, Caracalla’s edict indicated that there would no longer be social classes within the empire - everyone would be an “upper class” person. Since there was no goal to work towards, people started to find new targets and they decided to compete for the role of the emperor: the whole empire was a mess. And we could see this as the start of the Third Century Crisis.

During the Third Century Crisis, the Roman Empire nearly collapsed.

It was threatened by barbarian invasions, rebellions, civil wars and political instability. There were vast amounts of inflation. The last emperor of the Third Century, Diocletian, had to split the empire into four parts to help control the “old sinking boat” that was the Roman Empire. This marked the end of the third-century crisis.

In conclusion, what I pointed out in this article is that the edict that Caracalla issued was the starting point of the decline of the Roman Empire. This is because the edict broke the social class system and caused a long-lasting civil war that nearly ran the empire out.

The author of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon, has the opinion that Christianity was the reason for the fall of the empire, unlike other historians which believe that the reason for the fall of the empire was inadequate emperors, who then prompted war and economic decline. Taking a distinct stance from both is my belief - one which views social instability as the main cause for the fall of the Roman Empire.

34 I

The Impact of Civil Rights on the Roman Empire

The Philosophical Groundings of Equality Joshua Yen, Year 12, Shaftsbury One of mankind’s greatest developments in the past century has been the growing awareness of human rights and equality of treatment. Regardless of one’s background, people from all around the world have been rallying under one flag — the flag of equality.

While emotions and respect may point to the need for equality, as a philosopher, I am also worried about its groundings. Just that a lot of people believe in x doesn’t make x right! If belief in equality is unjustified, how can we possibly live an intellectually satisfied life, knowing full well that our key belief is unwarranted?

Hence, I have decided to set off on this journey to provide you with an insightful article to delve deeper into the possible groundings for equality, to provide you with an intellectually cogent and satisfying worldview upon which you can ground and develop your belief in equality. I would like to make it clear that I am turning towards the metaethical groundings of equality of treatment, not the practical reasons for the equality of treatment.

Before I put forth my argument, I would like to define what exactly do I mean when I am referring to “equality” or “equality of treatment”.

Equality of treatment, as the name suggests, is the idea that we should treat everyone equally and with respect. This does not mean that we cannot disagree with others, only that we should not impose our beliefs on those who hold different beliefs or oppress those who are different from us.

Furthermore, I would like to make a distinction between the roles of equality of treatment, equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity is the idea that everyone should be given the same opportunities regardless of their backgrounds. From this definition, we can see that it is a subcategory within the category of equality of treatment (which is not restricted to solely equality of opportunity). Equality of outcome, on the other hand, is not included within the equality of treatment and is independent of the equality of opportunity. This is the idea that all people regardless of their background and work ethic/contribution should be given the equal outcome, in most situations wages 1 2

or benefits. I believe that this is a mistaken view and it is clear that such a system would end in disaster .

1

Now that I have discussed what exactly I will be attempting to ground and defend in this article, I will lay out my argument: Premise 1: Either “Equality of treatment is grounded if and only if intrinsic value of human life is grounded” or “equality of treatment is grounded if and only if extrinsic value of human life is grounded” Premise 2:¬ “equality of treatment is grounded if and only if extrinsic value of human life is grounded” Therefore, Conclusion 1: Equality of treatment is grounded if and only if intrinsic value of human life is grounded 2

Premise 3: Groundings of intrinsic value are either atheistic or theistic or both fail Premise 4: Atheistic groundings of intrinsic value fail Premise 5: Theistic groundings of intrinsic value succeed (therefore, they don’t both fail) Therefore, Conclusion 2: Theism is the only grounds for the intrinsic value of human life Premise 6: Equality of treatment is grounded if and only if intrinsic value of human life is grounded (see C1) Premise 7: Intrinsic value of human life is grounded in theism (see C2) Therefore, Conclusion 3: Theism (x) grounds the equality of treatment.

Since the three stages of this argument are deductive, if the premises are true then the conclusion must follow from them.

Therefore, in this article, I will defend each premise one by one to show why theism is the sole grounding for the equality of treatment.

P1: “Equality of treatment is grounded if and only if intrinsic value of human life is grounded” or “equality of treatment is grounded if and only if extrinsic value of human life is grounded” The sole reason why our propositions “equality of treatment is metaphysically grounded if and

only if intrinsic value of human life is grounded” or “equality of treatment is metaphysically grounded if and only if extrinsic value of human life is grounded” are possible is due to the fact that equality of treatment has to presuppose a certain value in human life. Due to this dependency, the proposition can be written as a biconditional and is logically sound.

When we turn to the content of this premise, it too appears non-controversial. Properties can be classified into either intrinsic or extrinsic.

This is the idea that the property is contained within the subject (intrinsic) or is attributed to or externally attached to the subject (extrinsic). This is the same for the value of human life, it can be either an intrinsic property or an extrinsic property.

A possible rejection at this point could be the suggestion that the grounding of equality does not lie within the value of human life, but with the utility of equality of treatment. This objection would most likely come from a consequentialist or instrumentalist standpoint (I will refer to them as consequentialist from now on), this is the idea that equality of opportunity is a beneficial trait and should be supported, a good example of this would be economic benefits.

While this argument definitely has its merits, it is subject to three insuperable rebuttals: 1. The consequentialist standpoint does not successfully ground equality of treatment; it just pushes the explanatory requirement one step further. Even if we do show that equality of treatment can be explained by “beneficial” consequences, we can then ask why those consequences are “beneficial”. Let us take economic development as an example– even if one could show that equality of treatment leads to economic development, one is justified to ask why economic development is good. The answer to this, in most situations, will be “because it is beneficial to the development of humankind”. The loop returns back to the importance of humankind. If human life has no value, intrinsic or extrinsic, then why should we seek the development of the economy?

2. The consequentialist reasoning treats humans as means to obtain a certain end.

It is inexplicable why the man who works hard to feed his family should be paid the same as the man who plays mobile apps during work time.

This the negation sign which means (not-) and is followed by a proposition The Philosophical Groundings of Equality

I 35

This is a common and effective rebuttal of consequentialist moral reasoning. By looking at the consequence, economic development for example, anything done in order to achieve that goal becomes a means to achieve a particular end.

This devalues human dignity and can be used against the notion of equality of treatment.

While a consequentialist can salvage the situation by suggesting that human dignity should be the end, it fails as a meta-ethical grounding. This preference is arbitrary and there is nothing, on consequentialism, which dictates that someone must value human dignity as an ultimate end.

3. This is realised through a good analogy-the city of Omelas presented by Ursula Le Guin.

In this story, we are presented with a perfect city. However, there is one caveat, the perfection of this city is dependent on the torture of one young and innocent boy. Now let us make this scale a bit bigger: what if the perfection of the world was achievable, with the caveat that we must enslave and torture one race of people. In response to this, the consequentialist can raise the suggestion that slavery or the imprisonment of one may be inefficient. That may be true, the proponent of this argument can accept this. As seen previously, efficiency is not the sole indicator of moral obligation on consequentialism, other factors or ends can come into play. The Nazis thought the furtherance of the Aryan race was one of these ends. On consequentialism, there is nothing objectively “wrong” about this goal; one can only raise another end to compete with it, at the end of the day it is arbitrary.

From these three rebuttals, we can safely conclude that consequentialism fails to provide a suitable solution to the equality of treatment.

Therefore, it follows that the first premise of my argument stands.

P2: ¬ “equality of treatment is grounded if and only if extrinsic value of human life is grounded” Since this is a disjunctive syllogism, by showing that one of the two categories are wrong, we can see that the other disjunct is correct . In this case, I would aim to show why the second disjunct doesn’t work. I would do so from the perspective that equality of treatment is not dependent on extrinsic value.

3

1. All humans are biologically different from one another.

While there are substantially more similarities than differences between individuals, there are small differences in the DNA which separate every human being. Due to these differences in DNA, it is inexplicable why we should treat each other equally. Our current understanding of evolution makes it clear that natural selection occurs on a genetic level and the organisms with the best genetic traits are those which survive.

36 I

The Philosophical Groundings of Equality

The Philosophical Groundings of Equality

I 37

For the improvement of the species, it is beneficial that those who thrive are able to pass on their genes to the next generation. Unless, there is something intrinsically valuable in human life, it is inexplicable why we should hinder this important biological process.

2. Extrinsic value of human life allows for change. Since extrinsic value is a factor which is attached to human life and is not found within human life, it follows that it can be changed depending on social norms. For example, let us take into account a counterfactual, if the Nazis won the war and had control over the world, they may choose another value to attach to human life, perhaps the furtherance of the Aryan race.

From this reductio , we can see that on extrinsic value, the value and meaning of life is very much malleable, making it impossible to sustain a case for the equality of opportunity.

4

3. Extrinsic value of human life is subjective. This third objection follows a similar path as the previous one about change. Since extrinsic value of human life is dependent on an extrinsic value synthesised or determined by humans, it is very much subjective, making this an issue of “I think”, not “it is” or “it ought” . From this subjectivity, it makes us powerless to enforce the equality of treatment on anyone who disagrees. If we went back to the past and approached the slave owners and criticised their behaviour of abusing African Americans, on subjective moral standards, all they need to say is “I don’t think”, and one’s persuasion is thoroughly refuted.

5

From these three powerful objections to the extrinsic value of human life and its ability to support the equality of treatment, we can conclude that this extrinsic value of grounding fails, leading us logically to the conclusion.

Therefore, C1: Equality of treatment is grounded if and only if intrinsic value of human life is grounded This is the logical conclusion of the disjunctive syllogism found in the first two premises, therefore, in order to deny this conclusion, one must defeat either one of the first two premises.

P3: Groundings of intrinsic value are either atheistic or theistic or both fail

Once again this premise of the argument should be relatively uncontroversial. Explanations either reference or depend on the existence of a God (theistic) or do not have reference or dependence on the existence of a God (atheistic) . The third disjunct “or both fail” is also uncontroversial as it is logically possible that both atheistic and theistic explanations are insufficient and hence there is no grounding for equality of treatment.

6

P4: Atheistic groundings of intrinsic value fail The reason why atheistic groundings of intrinsic value fail can be explained from two perspectives. One can approach it from the subjective/ objective moral difference or one can approach it via its failure to provide intrinsic meaning in life. These perspectives are both sufficient in providing strong reasons for the failure of atheistic explanations.

When approaching the subjective/ objective moral difference, the weaknesses of an atheistic moral worldview soon become apparent. As we have seen in the discussion of P2, subjective moral reasoning would fail to ground the intrinsic value of human life. Since the term subjective implies that it is down to one’s interpretation and opinion, discussions about the value of human life can only be on an extrinsic basis, not an intrinsic one.

Therefore, we must turn towards the atheistic attempts at postulating an objective moral standard which can successfully ground the intrinsic value of human life. While this view has been mostly in the minority, it has grown in popularity with the rise of New Atheist writer Sam Harris in his book The Moral Landscape, where he suggests a hedonistic approach to objective morality. The idea that what is objectively good is to do that which maximizes human pleasure.

While this sounds correct at face value, you will soon realise that there are actually a lot of problems with Harris’ argument. The arguments raised in objection to consequentialism can once again be raised here. While it is true that if human pleasure is objectively desirable, then benefiting it would be objectively good, we can just ask why human pleasure is objectively desirable. Therefore, we see that his moral outlook presupposes the intrinsic value of human life instead of grounding it.

Furthermore, even if atheistic explanations worked, there would be no way of making any moral decision based upon a knowledge of intrinsic value. This is best presented by David Hume in his book A Treatise of Human Nature, where he describes the is-ought fallacy. Even if someone proved that intrinsic value of human life exists, he cannot then say, we ought to act upon this intrinsic value. While the former implies a fact, the latter implies moral value, something which is not found within a naturalistic world of matter and motion, rightfully named “the mystical” and “transcendental” by Wittgenstein. This notion would be developed in the second half of this argument where I would be developing the meaningless of the atheistic universe.

With the clear failure of atheistic moral groundings of the equality of treatment, I would now make a case against the intrinsic value of human life on atheism. In order to do so, I would be referencing major existentialist/ nihilist philosophers, Nietzsche, Kierkegard, Dostoyevsky , showing how their work points towards the ultimate meaningless and futility of life under an atheistic worldview.

7

Let us first turn to Nietzsche, one of the main philosophers associated with nihilism. Nihilism comes in many forms, but in this article, I would be discussing existential nihilism, the belief that life has no meaning.

This is embodied in Nietzsche’s proclamation of the death of God. In his book The Gay Science, he famously remarks: God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? 8 9

This extract is constantly misrepresented by atheists who postulate that Nietzsche was using this as a celebration of the end of religion.

However, this could not be further from the truth. He knew the implications of the fall of religion. He was afraid that along with the metaphorical death of God, the will to live and the will to meaning would crumble into ashes, an age of nihilism emerging in His place.

P1: p or q P2: ¬p C1: q Reductio ad absurdum: by showing that something is absurd, we can postulate that the suggestion is wrong. (the earth cannot be flat; otherwise people would fall off the edges) 5 Here lies the important “is/ought” distinction raised by Hume. While I would be discussing this issue in later premises (P4), this distinction/ fallacy is insignificant here, the illustration is to show the problem of subjective morals instead of how we are to approach objective morals.

6 While there is significant debate as two what these two terms actually mean, I will define these two terms as described in the article 7 I believe that these three philosophers best present the case against atheistic intrinsic value, later on in the article, I would compare their ideas to Sartre and Camus, two other philosophers who searched for meaning in a godless universe.

8 This idea of becoming gods is further emphasised by Dostoyevsky in the character of Kirilov who commits suicide to become god (an idea which is expounded on by Camus in The Myth of Sisiyphus) 9 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para. 125; Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp.181-82.]

3 4

38 I

The Philosophical Groundings of Equality

While some can object and say that this is only applicable to the theist, the atheist is also subject to this lack of meaning. This idea is emphasised in the idea of “[becoming] gods simply to appear worthy of it”. In order to replace the void created by the death of God, Nietzsche suggests that we should, ourselves, become a metaphorical god, the ultimate arbiter of all meaning.

If Nietzsche is right, do we really need God in order to support the intrinsic value of human beings?

To answer this, we must turn to the father of existentialism, Kierkegaard. Growing up surrounded by death, Kierkegraad recognised the stark futility of life. He saw “angst” as the thorn in the side for pleasure and contentment. To him, the lack of knowledge regarding the future, the fear of death, and other vices all increased the suffering and the intolerable nature of life.

This inescapable suffering led him to only one conclusion — Christianity. Not institutionalised Christianity, but the basic principles of Christianity, the self-sacrificial nature of the atonement, love for one’s neighbors, the dominating theme of forgiveness. He suggested that a “leap of faith” was necessary for one to escape the meaninglessness of life.

10

Yet is this really necessary? Is God really needed for the meaning of life or was Kierkegaard too pessimistic about the atheistic explanations?

This leads us to Dostoyevsky, one of the most profound Russian writers of the nineteenth century. Throughout his works, Dostoyevsky wrestles with issues of nihilism and irrationality.

This is perhaps best presented, as Camus notes, by the character Kirilov in Dostoyevsky’s book ‘Demons’. He understands that God is necessary for meaning; however, he simultaneously knows, with confidence, that God does not exist and cannot exist.

Consequence?

He kills himself.

He kills himself to become god, the god of himself .

This is the ultimate irony of atheistic groundings for the intrinsic value of life. No matter how far we try to run from God, no matter how hard we try to search for meaning in a world without a creator, Dostoyevsky makes it clear: A god must exist. If it doesn’t exist in reality, then one must kill oneself to become it.

Now that we have toured these three masters of philosophy, we arrive at the sole conclusion that life at its core, without God, has no intrinsic value and meaning.

In response to this, one may turn to the works of Camus (absurdist) and Sartre (existentialist/ humanist) , two philosophers who tried to find the meaning of life.

12

The absurdist, like Camus, would agree that on atheism, there is no intrinsic meaning in life. In fact, he would rejoice in the face of the absurd.

To Camus, it is the embracement of the absurd which appreciates the joy in life. While it is ironic, the absurd becomes the meaning of life.

The existentialist, on the other hand, may disagree. While an existentialist would agree that life doesn’t have any innate intrinsic meaning, they may suggest that the intrinsic meaning lies within the free will of man that allows him to choose his meaning.

Unfortunately, I disagree with the existentialist and the absurdist alike. The absurdist fails to ground any intrinsic value to life and the existentialist struggles with finding meaning out of non-meaning. After all, if you start off with a meaningless universe, it is hard to picture how any meaning could come from it.

Hence, we can conclude that the atheistic approach fails to warrant a belief in the intrinsic value of human life.

P5: Theistic groundings of intrinsic value succeed (therefore, they don’t both fail) Now that we have established the first disjunct of the syllogism fails, we must look at the second disjunct. This is the suggestion that theistic groundings of intrinsic value succeed. If it does, the third disjunct (they both fail) would be false and we can conclude that theism is the only solution to this premise.

When we take into account the Judeo-Christian

narrative, we immediately find ourselves with a sufficient grounding for the intrinsic value of human life. Regardless of the historical veracity of the first few chapters of Genesis, a different debate which I loath to enter, we learn that mankind is made in the image of God. From this simple yet profound proclamation, it follows that human life has intrinsic value and purpose. The fact that God Himself stepped down to earth in the personification of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and gave His life for all of humanity further emphasises this point.

Hence, where atheism fails, theism succeeds, not only in providing us with what the intrinsic value of human life is- that we are all made in the image of God- but also provides us with a sufficient grounding for the existence of this intrinsic value. With this in mind, we can conclude that theism provides a strong philosophical grounding and justification for belief in equality.

Therefore, C2: Theism is the only grounds for the intrinsic value of human life Due to theism’s success in grounding the intrinsic value of human life, we can see that the third disjunct of the disjunctive syllogism is wrong. Therefore, it follows logically that theism grounds the intrinsic value of human life.

P6: Equality of treatment is grounded if and only if intrinsic value of human life is grounded (see C1) This premise is a biconditional which postulates that equality of treatment is grounded if intrinsic value is grounded and intrinsic value is grounded if equality of treatment is grounded. Due to its biconditional nature, this would suggest that if we could successfully ground one of these conditions, the other would be grounded as well, therefore, if x grounds one of them, x would provide sufficient grounds for the other one.

P7: Intrinsic value of human life is grounded in theism (see C2) This premise is remarkably non-controversial, on the assumption that C2 of my argument stands, this premise is true as well. Since theism is the sole grounding for the intrinsic value of human life, we can conclude that theism is required to justify the equality of

11

He wasn’t too persuaded by the academic literature which pointed towards the existence of a God. However, if you are interested in such arguments, feel free to turn to William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne or Alvin Plantinga, philosophers of religion who make a good case for the existence of God. 11 This is what Nietzsche meant when he said “Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

12 Existentialism and absurdism are very similar beliefs, however the small difference is that the absurdist rejoices in the absurd and the existentialist is meant to find meaning from the meaningless 10

The Philosophical Groundings of Equality

I 39

treatment. In order to refute this premise, one must refute P3, P4, or P5 of the argument to show that C2 of the argument is false.

an analytically perfect being. Therefore, they provide not only moral fact, but also moral obligation.

At this point, the critic may suggest that theistic solutions are also subject to David Hume’s “is-ought” distinction. Even if theism successfully supports the claim that there is an intrinsic value of human life and that there is an equality of opportunity, there is no moral obligation for us to act upon it. This view is further presented by Dr. Wielenberg, a philosopher at DePauw University, who postulates that even if God commands or explains x there is no reason for x to be good.

In response to this, a critic can raise the hypothesis that God could “technically” command genocide (or any other morally objectable action). Unfortunately, this is where the flaws of an atheistic worldview are exposed.

While it is undeniable for a proponent of divine command that “if God commanded (insert morally objectionable action), we would be morally obliged to do so and that action will be good”, it doesn’t follow that God will command such an action. Since the theist normally adheres to the principle that God is intrinsically immutable and God has already laid out commands against morally questionable actions, it only follows that He would not change these commands.

While this argument is certainly very strong, I feel that there are two ways a theist can refute it.

Firstly, one can turn to the concept of an explanatory ultimate (or properly basic beliefs); this is a concept in philosophy where you can only get to a certain point before you are unable to explain such a phenomenon even further; therefore, the explanation you have at hand is the best possible explanation. Examples of this could be belief in other minds , the belief in the past , belief that the world is logical . These categories cannot be “proven”, yet are accepted by all but the most extreme skeptics and solipsists. In the same way, we too can say that belief in God, as a grounding for morality , is a properly basic belief/ the explanatory ultimate which explains our experience of the world around us, in this case our experience of moral knowledge (equality of treatment).

13

14

15

16

17

Secondly, God being good can be approached as an analytic proposition. The question “is God good?” is meaningless. If “God is (as an a priori truth/ tautology) good”, this means that it is impossible for God to be not good. Being God necessarily entails being good and not evil.

If a being was evil, then he wouldn’t be God. Since God is good and is the greatest conceivable being, His commandments are morally and analytically perfect. Unlike the arbitrary nature of secular moral theories, under this concept of God, morals have objective roots stemming from the immutable nature of

18

19

Furthermore, God is the sole standard of good and all forms of non-theistic explanations of morality fail (as demonstrated above). The only reason that we can say that any act is objectively wrong is due to a sense of the divine.

Hence, it would be demonstrably fallacious to hold a moral charge against God when God is the sole grounding of such objective moral values.

20

Therefore, we can see that these two rebuttals successfully refute the “is-ought” dilemma from which it follows that P7 of the argument is well defended.

C3: Theism (x) grounds the equality of treatment.

Since both P6 and P7 of this argument stands, C3 logically follows. Therefore, we reach the conclusion that theism is the sole grounding for the equality of treatment.

not an argument for the existence of God nor is this an argument against atheism. It is an argument for the grounding of the equality of treatment that is logically coherent and satisfying.

From this deductive argument, we can reach two profound insights into the groundings of equality: 1. On atheism, intrinsic value for human life cannot be grounded. Since belief in equality requires the intrinsic value of human life, it only follows that if God does not exist, belief in equality is unjustified.

2. On theism, intrinsic value of human life can be grounded. Since belief in equality requires the intrinsic value of human life, it only follows that if God does exist, belief in equality is justified.

In other words, theism is required for belief in the equality of treatment. A simple application of this logic would be the society we see around us today. While some argue black lives matter and others claim all lives matter, logically, if this argument stands, the atheist is making a more extreme claim: No lives matter! This is a very controversial conclusion and is bound to be a thorn in the side for many activists, so if you disagree with anything in the article, feel free to let me know and I will be happy to discuss or debate these issues with you.

However, if this argument stands, it logically follows that everytime you say no to discrimination or proclaim “Black Lives Matter!” you are implicitly asserting the existence of God.

In order to believe in the equality of treatment, one must also believe in a theistic explanation.

In order to refute this deductive argument, one must find a fault in the previous premises of my argument, otherwise, due to its deductive nature, these three conclusions must follow from their premises.

To conclude: I would like to make it very clear that this is

It is possible that you are a brain in a vat and everything around you are merely illusions You can’t necessarily disprove or prove whether the world was created five minutes ago with the image of it being millions of years old.

15 You can’t argue that the world is illogical without presupposing that the world is logical 16 Via a theistic grounding of morality like Divine Command Theory 17 This belief is commonly referred to as Reformed Epistemology, a theory of knowledge developed predominantly by Alvin Plantiga, however its historical traces can go all the way back to the Greeks.

18 This is the idea that God remains unchanged throughout time, the use of “intrinsically” just sheds clarity to the fact that God can change extrinsically in relationship to the world.

His own nature, on the other hand, does not change.

19 While not important for this discussion, it is good to differentiate between practical laws and moral laws that are set out in the Old Testament. Don’t eat pork would be an example of a practical law whereas do not murder is quite clearly a moral law.

20 This can be demonstrated by a simple syllogism: P1: Objective moral values exist if and only if God exists P2: Moral objections are dependent on objective moral values. P3: One arguing from moral objections against God (P2) would affirm the existence of God (P1) C1: Since any moral argument depends on the existence of God, one cannot use the moral argument to argue against God without proving the existence of God in the process.

13 14

40 I

The Philosophical Groundings of Equality

The Story of The Subway Vigilante Alexandra Joseph Hui, Year 9, Gellhorn

Civil rights, by law, are defined as an expansive and significant set of rights designed to protect individuals from unfair treatment. They guarantee equal protection under the law and are an essential part of democracy. One of the civil rights outlined is the right to a fair trial.

This story looks at a case in which a single man defied civil rights laws and changed how the world of law viewed protection, self-defence, and gun ownership. However, this story is unique- the victims of civil injustice are the criminals, and the city’s hero is a lawbreaker.

Bernhard Goetz was a white man who defied legal principle and managed to get away with charges of four counts of attempted murder, four of assault, four of reckless endangerment, and one of criminal possession of a weapon, because the jury refused to charge him. He is a man both regarded as a hero and villain by history. Having inspired creative works such as two episodes of ‘Law and Order’, Billy Joel’s ‘We didn’t start the Fire’, the 1993 film ‘Falling Down’, and most prominently, the popular film ‘Joker’ amongst many others, he is deeply embedded into pop culture and his name alone can spark passionate debates in across the U.S.

The Story of the Subway Vigilante

I 41

42 I

The Story of the Subway Vigilante

In the early afternoon of Saturday, December 22, 1984, in New York City, four black teenagers: Barry Allen, Troy Canty, and Darrell Cabey, all 19; and James Ramseur, 18—boarded a downtown train. The teens, each of whom previously had been arrested and convicted at least once, stated they were on their way to an arcade in Manhattan. At the 14th Street station, Goetz entered the car through the rearmost door, crossed the aisle and took a seat on the long bench across from the door. Canty was across the aisle from him, lying on the long bench just to the right of the door. Allen was seated to Canty’s left, on the short seat on the other side of the door. Ramseur and Cabey were seated across from the door and to Goetz’s right. According to Goetz’s statement to the police, approximately ten seconds later, Canty asked him, “How are you doing?” to which Goetz responded, “Fine.” The four youths then allegedly gave signals to each other, and shortly after Canty and Allen rose from their seats and moved over to the left of Goetz, blocking him off from the other passengers in the car. Canty then said, “Give me five dollars”.

Goetz responded by standing up, pulling out his handgun, and firing four shots in rapid succession. When asked what his intentions were when he drew his revolver, he said, “My intention was to murder them, to hurt them, to make them suffer as much as possible.”.

Although there is debate about who was shot in which order, it was ruled that the first shot hit Canty in the chest; the second struck Allen in the back; the third went through Ramseur’s arm and into his left side; the fourth was fired at Cabey, who was then standing in the corner of the car, but missed, deflecting instead off a wall of the conductor’s cab. After Goetz briefly surveyed the train scene around him, he fired another shot at Cabey, who was sitting on the end bench of the car. The bullet entered the rear of Cabey’s side and severed his spinal cord. From then on, Cabey was paralyzed from the waist down.

There was dispute as to whether Goetz said to Cabey “You don’t look so bad, here’s another ‘’ before firing the final devastating shot.

“If I had more bullets, I would have shot ‘em all again and again.”

Goetz said in a police tape. “My problem was I ran out of bullets.”

He added, “I was gonna, I was gonna gouge one of the guys’ eyes out with my keys afterwards”.

Goetz then fled the city before finally returning and surrendering himself to the police, saying “I’m the man you’re looking for in New York”.

He exercised his right to have an attorney present, and shortly afterwards attended trial alongside his two lawyers. At the criminal trial, Goetz’s defence attorneys, Barry Slotnick and Mark M. Baker, argued that the extreme statements made by Goetz were the product of emotion and an overactive imagination. Finally, the jury refused to indict Goetz on the more serious charges, voting indictments only for unlawful gun possession – in the 3rd degree, for carrying in public the loaded unlicensed gun used in the subway shooting, and two counts of possession in the 4th degree, for keeping two other unlicensed handguns in his home. Goetz only ended up serving 8 months of jail time.

“The Subway Vigilante,” as Goetz was labelled by NYC media, was front-page news for months. Afterwards, Goetz embraced celebrity status. He appeared in small films, pushed for the legalisation of marijuana, made a run for mayor’s office, and even opened a store called ‘Vigilante Electronics’. Public opinion was divided into three camps: those who believed Goetz’s version of the incident, that he was aggressively surrounded by four teenagers and feared he was about to be beaten and robbed; those who believed the version told by the four teenagers, that they were merely panhandling to get some money to play video games; and the others who believed that

Goetz had indeed been threatened, but viewed the shooting as an unjustified overreaction.

The prior criminal convictions of three of the four teenagers prevented them from gaining sympathy from many people. A special hotline set up by police to seek information about the case was swamped by calls supporting the shooter and calling him a hero, for standing up to his attackers and defending himself in an environment where the police were increasingly viewed as ineffective in combating crime.

Though majority of the public in New York City voiced their support for Goetz, many questions were raised about the fairness of the jury and the legal system. Organized demonstrators accused Goetz of genocide. The question was raised: Was it right that someone who had said his intention was to murder the teenagers had been acquitted of attempted murder?

Some people saw the incident as racial, and the jury verdict as a blow to race relations. Benjamin Hooks, director of the NAACP (The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People- a civil rights organisation), said, “The jury verdict was inexcusable. ... It was proven – according to his own statements – that Goetz did the shooting and went far beyond the realm of self-defence. There was no provocation for what he did.”. Another representative agreed, saying, “I think that if a black had shot four whites, the cry for the death penalty would have been almost automatic.”. Furthermore, Goetz used derogatory racial language about criminal activity on 14th Street, saying, “The only way we’re going to clean up this street is to get rid of the spics and n*ggers”. This became clear evidence for racial motivation behind the shooting, and black political and religious leaders twice called for Federal civil rights investigations, but were ultimately dismissed. It was determined that the shooting had come solely from a place of fear although Goetz later admitted that his fear was enhanced because the alleged muggers were black.

A month after the shooting, Darrell Cabey filed a civil suit against Goetz, with race as the dominant theme, and the jurors (mostly nonwhite) awarded him $43 million- $18 million for pain and suffering and $25 million for punitive damages. However, Goetz subsequently filed for bankruptcy, claiming that legal expenses had made him penniless, and when later asked about whether he compensated Cabey in 2004, said “ I don’t think I’ve paid a penny on that”. Cabey wasn’t the only one whose life was greatly affected by the shooting- On December 22nd, 2011, exactly 27 years after the subway incident happened, James Ramseur committed suicide. Did Goetz’s actions ruin his life?

What Goetz did goes far beyond what is considered legal self-defense.

He paralysed a man, yet he was not convicted of assault. He said he was trying to kill four teenagers, yet he was not convicted of attempted murder. What he did was inexcusable according to current law, but in the 1980’s, an overwhelming majority praised him for being the hero that combated New York crime. So was Bernhard Goetz really a hero? Was he in the wrong, or was he acting quickly under an adrenaline rush? Were the teenagers the wrongdoers, or did they fall victim to unnecessary violence? Were their civil rights infringed for not getting a fair trial and facing discrimination for their race? Did the jurors who refused to convict Bernhard Goetz play a major role in a huge step back for the civil rights movement?

The Story of the Subway Vigilante

I 43

When Should We Address Inequality?

Julien Levieux, Year 13, Churchill As I am writing this, anti-racism protest are flaring around the globe, demanding a realisation of long-running injustices and an end to the discrimination of minorities. Triggered by the graphic death of George Floyd and unfazed by the coronavirus threat, protesters have ignited many debates on policing, reparations, the evaluation of historical figures and specific societal principles such as universalism. Yet their message remains clear: to many, society in its current form is littered with various social inequalities, and must change.

This is not the first time in 2020 that people have demanded a reduction in inequality. At the start of the coronavirus pandemic, there was a marked contrast between how wealthier residents in developed countries could stay at home while those deemed ‘essential workers’ had to work as usual, often with inadequate protection. This has led to calls for a new social contract with more workers’ rights and a reduction in economic inequality. As the pandemic progressed to developing countries, another contrast emerged between the economic response of developed and developing countries.

The question of debt relief and other problems of global justice subsequently re-emerged.

Most would say that there is something unfair in each of these situations that need change.

The question of when we should address inequality in general, however, is a more difficult question of justice that requires deeper examination. To do so, I will explore, specifically, when we should address social, economic and global inequalities through a philosophical lens.

Through this, I hope to help inform your position so that you may know where you stand in this debate.

Social inequality At its most basic level, humans object to deliberately imposed inequalities in society. Most object to state-sanctioned racial, gender, ethnic or religious discrimination that deliberately excludes people from education, jobs and other areas in the social sphere. This type of discrimination is unfair because it permanently affects people’s welfare for no good reason. For example, why should we exclude someone from a job based on their skin colour? Aside from prejudice, there is no good reason. Fairness in society requires that opportunities are open to those who are

44 I

When Should We Address Inequality?

deserving and qualified, and that judgement of somebody does not rest on prejudiced and irrelevant factors. So, when a government imposes discriminatory laws, this gives ground to act and tackle social inequality.

Nevertheless, many of the social justice movements of late – Me Too, Black Lives Matter and so on – object not necessarily to discriminatory laws but to a discriminatory culture. Activists against racism may note that while racist Jim Crow laws no longer exist in the United States, the police disproportionately kill Black people.

Feminists may note that laws prevent employers from discriminating based on gender, but some industries remain overwhelmingly dominated by men. Both cases seem to highlight how people are still judged by irrelevant and prejudiced factors, despite laws preventing this.

Are these good grounds to call for change?

Some may disagree. An extreme position would be to say that the basic standards of right and wrong depend entirely on society’s values. A racist culture may be wrong in one community but not in another, because the values are different. We should therefore not tackle a racist culture in a racist society, as it values such a culture – there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong about racism. Such a view would be an example of moral relativism. Judging by the way I write, you can probably tell I find it very hard to believe in this position. Not only is it frequently an argument used by racists (“We like our culture the way it is”), there are two other problems with this argument. One, if laws already exist to prevent discrimination, that should indicate that society no longer values said discrimination. Two, if social justice movements are only justified if they align with society’s current values, that seems to preclude any minority-led calls for change. This is an extreme and untenable position. Were movements for women’s voting rights unjustified because they did not align with society’s then-values? Clearly not.

Another way one might disagree would be to dispute the existence of a discriminatory culture, saying that other factors cause discrepancies in female employment, but that would be another topic for discussion. The most common way of disagreeing would be to say that the existence of laws preventing discrimination is more than enough. The reason a discriminatory culture may exist is that the

rules are not enforced adequately, but the fact that such laws exist provide the most reliable way to tackle discrimination. It is foolish to use government measures to change culture because culture is always changing and challenging to enforce. Some may even go further and say that state intervention to enforce culture may be undesirable and a violation of liberties.

For example, censoring an old film or book because they may perpetuate classic gender stereotypes would be overkill. Alternatively, this argument is often combined to argue against the apparent existence of a discriminatory culture. Some may cite the lack of litigation in a particular field of work to say that the discrepancy in female employment is not due to discrimination, but rather, other factors. So long as anti-discrimination laws exist, that is more than enough.

The German philosopher Karl Marx would strongly disagree with that statement. For all the failings of his other theories (especially communism), Marx made a very keen observation about the inefficacy of written laws. As he observed, equal political rights are worth fighting for, but they are of little value if people still treat you unequally. In his famous essay ‘On the Jewish Question’ (1844) he writes: “A state can liberate itself from a limitation without man himself being truly free of it.”

In other words, political emancipation – freeing people from legal or political restrictions – does not free people from societal constraints. Marx wrote his essay at a time when recently-passed Prussian laws restricted the rights of Jews like himself. Although the Rhenish Parliament would later vote for the emancipation of Jews, the King vetoed the legislation. Marx’s essay argued that even if the King allowed laws to ensure Jewish emancipation, it would make no difference. It would not change the fact that a German Jew remained a second-class citizen.

Why are laws so ineffective? The simple answer would be that they are human creations. Nobody is perfect, and neither are our creations.

People can easily circumvent laws. For example, how can one prove discrimination when a Black person is paid less for doing the same job?

The boss could argue that the differences in salaries are a result of gaps in performance and talent. Laws may also not be rigidly enforced.

Rules against bullying may exist at school, but how effective are they if teachers turn a blind

eye to bullying? (Note: I am NOT insinuating that this happens at Harrow; it’s just a useful analogy to help my explanation) Another keen observation Marx made was that a right to equality could sometimes be completely unequal. How equal would it be if disabled athletes competed with other Olympic athletes?

It would be foolish to claim a ‘disability-blind’ policy makes that competition anything but unequal.

The last point Marx made has been contentious for some feminists because it implicitly suggests that women have different needs than men. Some see this as an admission of female inferiority, and thus some feminists have attempted to deny that women have different needs. Yet different needs may not be a sign of weakness. After all, men have a higher average daily calorie intake than women, but this is neither a sign of superiority or inferiority. Similarly, ‘gender-blind’ policies in the workplace can be extremely discriminating. If a boss paid his employees by the hour, pregnant women would earn less in total because they have to take time off work, which is unfair. This is why paid maternity leave exists: to cater to womens’ different needs, not to make them inferior.

Of course, men and womens’ different needs can be greatly exaggerated to perpetuate gender stereotypes, but it follows that even laws that promote equality can be unequal. According to Marx, that would be another grounds for calling for change.

Something I want to make clear, however, is that this does not mean that all social justice activists are Marxists. Some may be Marxists, but otherwise, this attack line from politicians is at best, ignorant. Marx was a very influential philosopher who inspired non-Marxists alike with his social critiques. Why many are reluctant to endorse Marx completely is probably because of his solution to a discriminatory culture: revolutionary action to overthrow the current system to establish a classless, communist utopia.

Marx’s solutions are not the only controversial ones. Affirmative action in universities and reparations towards disadvantaged minorities are also contentious.

It follows that the most controversial area in the social inequality debate is how to solve it.

Otherwise, we have seen that we should tackle social inequality when it is state-sponsored, and also when a discriminatory culture clearly exists in apparent violation of anti-discriminatory laws.

Relativist arguments to defend such a culture are flawed. Laws can also be ineffective at promoting equality, and some that aim to do so are inherently unequal. This gives grounds to call for change, but what kind of change is highly debatable.

Economic inequality In the case where the cause of inequality is unfair, we should act to change the cause. That is simple enough in the case of discrimination. In the case where the cause is not unjust, things become more complicated.

Suppose that two restaurants have very different performances because one has a renowned, talented chef, and the other does not. This difference in talent, a natural difference but not necessarily the fault of either chef, results in the family and employees of the other restaurant consequently not receiving business, having lower wages, and causes inequality. The cause of this inequality – a simple preference for food – is not wrong or illegal. Whether to address this inequality becomes a dilemma.

In most countries around the world, there is a system of redistributive taxation to solve this issue. Those with higher incomes or inheritance are taxed higher, and the government redistributes it for the use of those with lower incomes.

The tax income can then be used for providing services to the poor that would otherwise be inaccessible, for example, healthcare, education and social welfare. This, in turn, can reduce some inequality by ensuring that both the rich and the poor receive similar equality of opportunity to live.

Governments with this kind of tax system run with the assumption that we should tackle economic inequality in general – when specifically, requires more analysis.

The Genevan philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau implicitly justified tackling economic inequality overall. He believed that a state was justified if it represented the ‘general will’: a vague concept that meant the collective will of the citizen body as a whole. The general will is the source of all law. Therefore laws must be general in application but universal in scope: it cannot target specific individuals and must be impartial. For this to be true, he argued that a state could not have a high degree of economic inequality. Otherwise, the impact of the laws would vary for each individual. A law which restricted the right to vote to literate individuals might be fair if the population were 99% literate; it would not be appropriate if only 15% were literate, for example. Thus we can infer that economic inequality can threaten the entire social fabric. This is not too dramatic a statement: Rousseau died not long before the French Revolution began, partly caused by discontent over the economic inequality in France at the time. So from Rousseau, we can see why we should tackle economic inequality in general; the debate usually begins over the

question of when economic inequality is so bad that we must do something about it. There are many answers to that question.

An extreme answer would be to say that all forms of economic inequality should be eliminated. Almost all, even Marx, have rejected this position. As previously mentioned, Marx believed that equality could paradoxically be unequal: it is not fair for a sick patient to receive the same amount of economic resources as a healthy person, for example. Other reasons for rejecting this hardcore equality would be that it is impossible. To achieve simple equality would require a potent state in charge of distributing resources equally. Giving so much power to a state would result in corruption, meaning that another inequality would re-emerge. Another reason for rejecting simple equality would be that it is undesirable: it removes any possibility of freedom of choice. One can no longer decide which restaurant to go to; one would be assigned to a restaurant to ensure that each restaurant receives the same number of customers. Not many would like to be in such a situation.

The argument that most closely justifies the distributive taxation system of today is that made by the American philosopher John Rawls. He believed that to construct the model state, we would need to undergo a thought experiment.

Suppose two people are playing cards. Suppose that as one person deals, they see a card lying on the floor. Seeing that, one proposes to the other that they should deal again, but the other person disagrees. Attempts to compromise fail. How should this dispute be resolved fairly?

Perhaps the two players were smart enough to anticipate such a situation and so agreed to reshuffle the cards should such a situation arise.

Suppose they did not do this. Maybe they can consult an impartial spectator – preferably one who understands the game of cards. Suppose that this is not an available option. What can they do?

A third option would be to imagine a hypothetical agreement. Both players could imagine what they would have agreed upon before the game if they had made an agreement. This hypothetical thinking is a way to filter out our bias when making decisions – something which Rawls adopts in his philosophy.

In his seminal work ‘A Theory of Justice’ (1971) he writes: “Certain principles of justice are justified because they would be agreed to in an initial When Should We Address Inequality?

I 45

situation of equality.”

With echoes of Rousseau, he commences his thought experiment by relegating everybody to an impartial state – something he called ‘the original position’. In this state, everybody is to be filtered out of knowledge which can bias perspective. This state of ignorance he famously called the ‘veil of ignorance’, and it is necessary before people can begin to think of the terms of the hypothetical social contract.

People do not know how to make the conditions favour themselves, so they would make the terms impartial for everybody because that would be the best way to benefit themselves.

The people would have no knowledge of their social class, no knowledge of their race, no knowledge of their natural talents, no knowledge of the current economic circumstances and no knowledge of what they think makes life worthwhile. What the people do know are what Rawls calls ‘primary goods’: liberty, opportunity, wealth, income and self-respect.

Rawls considers these to underpin all other wants in life. Rawls then assumes that the people undertaking this thought experiment want to maximise these primary goods, that they are rational, and that they do not care about other people’s situation.

What would the hypothetical contract look like after this thought experiment? According to Rawls, the conditions would be: “1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a system for all.

2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:

a. To the greatest benefit to the least advantaged...and

b. Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.” (From ‘A Theory of Justice’)” The first principle is the Liberty Principle: people should be granted liberties to the extent that it does not infringe upon other people’s freedoms.

For Rawls, this takes priority over the other principles. So even if slavery improved the lives of slaves economically, it would not be justified because it would violate the Liberty principle.

2 b) is the Fair Opportunity Principle, which we briefly explained the reason behind at the start of the article. 2 a) is the Difference Principle, which is most relevant for this section.

The reasoning behind such a principle lies loosely with rational choice theory. Suppose you came home from a stressful day and wish to have a drink. You can have a glass of water,

46 I

When Should We Address Inequality?

which may quench your thirst, but would not do much to improve your happiness whether the water tasted good or not (perhaps you left it in the sun). However, it is very unlikely that the water would taste bad: it is just water. Or you can have a glass of milk, which can improve your happiness if it tasted good but would make you annoyed if it tasted bad. There is also a much higher chance of the milk being expired and tasting bad. Which drink should you have?

Perhaps you go straight for the milk. It is a much riskier choice, but you may decide that it is a risk worth paying to improve your mood. This principle would be called ‘maximax’: maximising the maximum result. It may sound rational, but it is a joke. If drinking the milk caused a risk of severe food poisoning, nobody would go for the milk. In the context of economic inequality ‘maximax’ means exclusively ensuring that the richest are as rich as possible, presumably because you have a slim chance of being in that top 1%. However, not many would support the ensuing inequality.

Suppose you decide to work out the chances of the milk being expired and the associated happiness that drinking the milk or water would give. Maybe you have some background in statistics: you decide to find out the expected value and choose the drink which maximises the expected value of happiness. Perhaps it turns out that the milk gives higher expected satisfaction. This seems a rational way of doing things.

Maybe you want to play things safe and decide to go for the water. This principle is called ‘maximin’: maximising the minimum result. In the context of economic inequality, ‘maximin’ refers to the Difference Principle.

So it seems that we have to decide between the principles of maximin and maximising expected value when determining what degree of economic inequality is acceptable. Rawls rejects maximising expected value because it is too risky. In the above example, it might involve you taking a glass of milk, which has a chance of being expired. An essential aspect of this hypothetical contract is that once agreed, it must be final. If it turns out that the society which the contract has engineered is undesirable, then the initial agreement was never justified. So maximising average income cannot be the terms of the hypothetical contract.

So maximin – the Difference Principle – seems like the condition that rational people under the veil of ignorance would agree to. Because nobody knows who will be rich or poor, it makes sense to engineer a society in which the

When Should We Address Inequality?

I 47

wealth of the poor is maximised, so that, if you were poor, you would be happy that society is at least trying to make you not poor. For Rawls, we should address economic inequality if doing so can maximise the wealth of the poor.

Is this a good idea? Some may disagree. The most famous critique of Rawls comes from his Harvard counterpart, Robert Nozick. Nozick does not necessarily see fault with Rawls’ method; instead, he thinks that the Difference Principle is incompatible with the Liberty Principle. He begins his argument by clarifying between ‘patterned’ and ‘unpatterned’ theories of justice. Patterned theories follow a pattern: to distribute resources based on people’s needs, to distribute resources based on people’s abilities etc. Nozick claims that all patterned theories violate liberty.

The example he uses to show this is what is now known as the ‘Wilt Chamberlain argument.’ Wilt Chamberlain was an American basketball player who holds the record for scoring 100 points in an NBA game. Let us assume that society distributes resources according to people’s needs (a patterned theory); let us call this distribution D1. Now, fans voluntarily show up to watch Wilt Chamberlain play and pay for tickets; Wilt earns money and distorts the initial distribution of resources and causes a new distribution D2. From this, Nozick draws several conclusions.

First, any patterned theory can be disrupted by people acting freely. For example, the initial distribution of resources according to people’s needs was disrupted by people choosing to watch Wilt play. Can people ever rigidly stick to a pattern? Probably not. It would involve missing out on the chance of watching Wilt Chamberlain play.

Secondly, if D1 is justified, and people choose to move D1 to D2, then D2 must be justified.

Once we conclude this, we have admitted that there can be justified disruptions to the original pattern, thus refuting patterned theories altogether. There are only two ways of enforcing this pattern: one is to violate people’s right to choose to watch Wilt Chamberlain and maintain D1, or the other, is to intervene to redistribute wealth continually. This is impeding people’s liberty: Nozick considers liberty to mean no restrictions on the right to own property.

Nozick considers Rawls’ Difference Principle to be a patterned theory, and Rawls has said that the Liberty Principle takes precedence over the Difference Principle. So Nozick thinks Rawls’ theory violates liberty. Supporters of Rawls’ argument can respond that Nozick’s’ views of liberty differ from Rawls’: Rawls only considers ‘basic liberties’ such as freedom of speech and

48 I

When Should We Address Inequality?

freedom to run for government. It does not mean that people should be free from the government interfering in their lives. Nozick has a stronger attack. He claims that taxation is forced labour. If you are paid to work and forced to pay 50% of your income for tax, half of the time you are, in essence, working for someone else you did not choose to work for.

So for Nozick, we should not address economic inequality, unless the inequality was a result of crime or discrimination because to do so would violate liberties. What the state should do is to protect people from crime, enforce contracts and respect the right to private property.

Nozick is not the only one to think that we should not address inequality (barring some exceptional cases like crime and discrimination). Social Darwinists believe that humans are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection that you see in nature. Therefore, in society, people compete for resources and mates; social Darwinists claim that the fittest win this competition and will come to replace the losers through natural selection. To tackle inequality would oppose progress in society by reducing the intensity of this struggle.

The problem, however, with this theory is that there may exist a ‘fittest’ group of people only at a very specific time. As society is continually changing, the vision of a fit group of people winning out is incoherent because they can quickly lose out tomorrow – they may not accumulate resources and phase out other people. The other problem with social Darwinian theories is that they can ironically become a victim of their success. Suppose we run society with Darwinian principles and one group of people win the natural selection race and begin accumulating all the resources. Those who are left out will be unhappy and will resist being phased out. They may start to resist the winning class violently, and now we have a real Darwinian struggle that we see in the wild. Is this the society that people envision living in?

As Rousseau prudently observed, inequalities breed human jealousy and threaten society altogether.

So while the Darwinian argument may be incoherent, how do we respond to Nozick? Most societies are not run to his ideal. What we could say is that redistributive taxation increases the liberty for the poor, because it gives them more choice to use that money for different purposes. Yet Nozick’s argument has revealed an important point: there may be times when even Rawls’ theory might not seem justified. The American philosopher Harry Frankfurt believes that inequality is not the problem; the question is whether people have enough.

Would it make sense to redistribute inequality in a situation where most people earned the wages of executives and there were

a few super wealthy billionaires? Perhaps not.

The worst-off still have the ability to live very comfortably.

Then again, one could still say that in Rawls’ original position, nobody knows what the income of the worst-off would be, so it makes sense to help them regardless. The debate could go on and on.

So while the debate on when to tackle economic inequality may be a fascinating question in political philosophy, it does not follow that it can provide us with obvious answers. Rawls’ theory may be very influential, but some would still object to it. Perhaps the question of economic inequality is one better suited for economists to answer. Thomas Piketty may be a more authoritative source to consult.

Global inequality One of the first things that people learn in Geography is something called the ‘North-South divide’. Generally speaking, countries located in the ‘Northern’ parts of the Earth tend to be more developed while those found in the ‘South’ tend to be developing countries. This trend isn’t wholly true today – note how Australia and New Zealand are considered part of the ‘North’ while they are distinctly located very South of the equator – but the trend remains somewhat true. North America is much more developed than South America, Europe is much more advanced than Africa, and Northern parts of Asia tend to be more developed than Southern parts of Asia. Partly why this trend exists (although not the whole story) is colonialism. ‘Northern’ countries like France or the United Kingdom colonised ‘Southern’ states.

They exploited these colonies for their profit, inhibiting the colonies’ development for many more years (as seen, for example, in Haiti). So an idea that has gained traction recently is to reverse this injustice by forcing countries to pay reparations to their former colonies.

Is this fair? Partly, maybe: it is not untrue that colonialism has inhibited some countries’ development. However, can we say that the lack of progress in these former colonies is due entirely to colonialism? Alternatively, can we say that the developed status of developed countries is altogether owing to its exploitation of colonies? Probably not. Another issue with reparations is that we are placing the burden of payment on a generation which may have no involvement whatsoever in colonialism. To be forced to pay for something which you did not do isn’t entirely fair.

Instinctively, this conclusion does not sound right. It also seems unfair that colonial countries

can walk away from their troubled past without paying any kind of reparations. Perhaps we should think about things differently. It may be true that our actions unknowingly worsen global inequality. For example, if you decide to buy a German car instead of a Mexican one, you have inadvertently exacerbated global inequality by advantaging a developed country and disadvantaging a developing country. The cause of this inequality is not wrong; it is not a result of discrimination, for example. We might also conclude that we should have some sort of redistributive mechanism to help developing countries. Now here emerges a point of contention. Should this redistribution of wealth be mandatory, or should it be a result of personal choice?

Those who believe that the redistribution of global wealth should be mandatory are called philosophical ‘cosmopolitans’. They think that principles of justice apply to everyone in the world, regardless of borders. Philosophical ‘nationalists’ disagree. They are not nationalists in the political sense (although they could be), but believe principles of justice only apply within a state–there is a moral significance to borders. Duties to help the poor may exist within a country, but there are no duties beyond that – such actions would only be a matter of charity.

You may think that this debate seems beside the point. After all, both cosmopolitans and nationalists agree that we should help the world’s poorest people. Yet the distinction between the two views is essential. If we take the cosmopolitan view and see global redistribution as a matter of justice, then it becomes something enforceable. For example, countries will sue those who evade tax. If global redistribution becomes a question of justice, it may become enforceable: people can be sued if they avoid their duty to pay the world’s poor. Instinctively, upon hearing this, most people would revert to the nationalist position. Most people would think that they pay taxes to their government so that it helps its citizens, not citizens of another country (unless that is done for geopolitical reasons, for example). After all, what is the point of having individual states if they are not there to help their citizens?

This conclusion might unsettle some; perhaps it could be attacked as xenophobic. Yet it does not seem entirely fair to take the cosmopolitan view and mandate citizens of a wealthy country to pay for the world’s poor. After all, those who struggle to get by in a prosperous country may be considered wealthy, globally. However, making them pay for the citizens of a poorer country seems to be asking too much. Perhaps there may be a third way of doing things: maybe wealthy countries should redistribute

When Should We Address Inequality?

I 49

their wealth not based upon a Rawlsian Difference Principle, but to ensure a minimum standard of living. Most states have unknowingly or knowingly chosen this path. By being members of the United Nations, countries have also voluntarily funded related agencies like the World Health Organisation, which help ensure a minimum standard of living in developed countries.

For some, this may still be too little.

The question of global justice is an emotional one and will always be challenging to solve. It follows that a pure cosmopolitan or nationalist view may be difficult to defend, but both do provide useful insights that could inform a more balanced third-way of viewing things.

Conclusion The question of when to resolve inequality will never lead to easy answers. More importantly, there can never be a position that can be free from any attack. What is more important, therefore, is to be able to articulate views that are logical and coherent so that that thoughtful debate may proceed. Hopefully, this article helped inform your position so that you can also join the discussion.

Further reading What does it all mean? By Thomas Nagel An introduction to political philosophy by Jonathan Wolff Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick Is Economic Inequality Really a Problem?

By Samuel Scheffler https://www.nytimes. com/2020/07/01/opinion/economic-inequality-moral-philosophy.html

50 I

When Should We Address Inequality?

Citations Black Wall Street

1998.

Johnson, Hannibal B. Black Wall Street: From riot to renaissance in Tulsa’s historic Greenwood district. Marion Koogler McNay Art Museum, Walker, Robin. The Rise and Fall of Black Wall Street: And the Seven Key Empowerment Principles. Reklaw Education Limited, 2014.

Wilson, Jay Jay, and Ron Wallace. Black Wall Street. Black Wallstreet Pub., 1996.

Class and Race: unrelated or inseparable?

Foroohar, Rana. Black Lives Matter Is about Both Race and Class, Financial Times, 14 June 2020, www.ft.com/content/28dc48f8-b36b4848-8e73-774999a8e502.

“What about Race?” Class Action, classism.org/about-class/what-about-race/.

Wilson, William Julius. “Don’t Ignore Class When Addressing Racial Gaps in Intergenerational Mobility.” Brookings, Brookings, 11 Apr. 2018, www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/04/12/dont-ignore-class-when-addressing-racial-gaps-in-intergenerational-mobility.

Hamilton, Darrick, and Jennifer Cohen. “Race Still Trumps Class for Black Americans | Darrick Hamilton and Jennifer Cohen.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 27 Mar. 2018, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/27/race-trump-class-black-americans.

*“U.S. Poverty Statistics.” Federal Safety Net, federalsafetynet.com/us-poverty-statistics.HTML. OK Could God Be Blamed for Racial Inequality in America?

Olusoga, David. “The Roots of European Racism Lie in the Slave Trade, Colonialism – and Edward Long.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 8 Sept. 2015, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/08/european-racism-africa-slavery.

Cave, Peter. Can a Robot Be Human?: 33 Perplexing Philosophy Puzzles. Oneworld, 2008.

Bible, Galatians 3:28

Has Political Correctness in America Gone Too Far?

1. Borger, Julian, and Penketh, Anne. “Fight Intimidation with Controversy: Charlie Hebdo’s Response to Critics.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 7 Jan. 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-satire-intimidation-analysis.

1. Thompson, Nick. “Charlie Hebdo: Magazine Is No Stranger to Controversy.” CNN, Cable News Network, 7 Jan. 2015, edition.cnn. com/2015/01/07/europe/charlie-hebdo-controversy/index.html.

2. Granath, Solveig, and Magnus, Ullen. “‘The Elevation of Sensitivity over Truth’: Political Correctness And Related Phrases in The Time Magazine Corpus.” Applied Linguistics, vol. 40, no. 2, 2017, pp. 265–287., doi:10.1093/applin/amx019.

3. Roper, Cynthia. “Political Correctness.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 31 Jan. 2020, www.britannica.com/topic/ political-correctness.

4. Campisi, Jessica. “Bill Maher Calls Political Correctness ‘a Cancer on Progressivism’.” TheHill, The Hill, 11 June 2019, thehill.com/ homenews/media/447843-bill-maher-political-correctness-a-cancer-on-progressivism-forwarding.

5. Williams, Thomas. “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate.” A Letter on Justice and Open Debate, Harper’s Magazine , 7 July 2020, harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/.

6. Chait, Jonathan. “Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say.” Intelligencer, 27 Jan. 2015, nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thingto-say.html.

7. Brenan, Teresa. “Foreword.” Political Correctness: a Response from the Cultural Left, by Richard Feldstein, University of Minnesota Press, 1997, pp. 9–19.

8. Press, Associated. “Longtime Sacramento Kings TV Broadcaster Resigns after Tweet to DeMarcus Cousins.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 3 June 2020, www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-06-02/sacramento-kings-tv-broadcaster-grant-napear-resigns-demarcus-cousins.

9. Colton | June 21, Emma. “Conservative Pundit Mocks ‘Cancel Culture’ with Tweets Urging Yale to Change Name for Slave Trade Link.” Washington Examiner, 21 June 2020, www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/conservative-pundit-mocks-cancel-culture-with-tweets-urging-yaleto-change-name-for-slave-trade-link.

10. Kesslen, Ben. “Aunt Jemima Brand to Change Name, Remove Image That Quaker Says Is ‘Based on a Racial Stereotype’.” NBCNews. com, NBCUniversal News Group, 17 June 2020, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/aunt-jemima-brand-will-change-name-remove-image-quaker-saysn1231260?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma.

11. Norton, Michael I, et al. Sage Journals, 2006, pp. 949–953, Color Blindness and Interracial Interaction: Research Report - Playing the Political Correctness Game.

I 51

12. Rodin, Miriam J, et al. “Asymmetry in Prejudice Attribution.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 26, no. 6, 1990, pp.

481–504., doi:10.1016/0022-1031(90)90052-n.

13. “Cracks in the Liberal Edifice.” The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, by John J. Mearsheimer, Yale University Press, 2018, pp. 82–119, 10.2307/j.ctv5cgb1w.

14. Wilson, John K. The Myth of Political Correctness The Conservative Attack on Higher Education. Duke University Press, 2012.

15. Jones, Tom. “Breaking down the Controversial Resignation of New York Times Opinion Writer Bari Weiss.” Poynter, 15 July 2020, www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/breaking-down-the-controversial-resignation-of-new-york-times-opinion-writer-bari-weiss/.

15. Weiss, Bari. “Resignation Letter.” Bari Weiss, 2020, www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter.

15. Jones, Tom. “The Controversy at The New York Times Is over More than Just One Op-Ed. The Future of the Times Could Be at Stake.” Poynter, 8 June 2020, www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/the-controversy-at-the-new-york-times-is-over-more-than-just-one-op-ed-the-future-of-the-times-could-be-at-stake/.

How Gerrymandering Inhibits Civil Rights Progression

II, Story by Vann R. Newkirk. “The Battle for North Carolina.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/the-battle-for-north-carolina/501257/. Accessed 11 Sept. 2020.

Ingraham, Christopher. “This Is the Best Explanation of Gerrymandering You Will Ever See .” The Washington Post, 2015.

Murphy, Brian, and Will Doran. “New Congressional Maps in North Carolina Will Stand for 2020, Court Rules.” The News & Observer, 2019.

“North Carolina’s Congressional Map Gets Struck down in Court, but Democrats Shouldn’t Get Hopes Up.” Daily Kos, https://www.dailykos. com/story/2016/2/5/1480735/-North-Carolina-s-congressional-map-gets-struck-down-in-court-but-Democrats-shouldn-t-get-hopes-up. Accessed 11 Sept. 2020.

Onion, Rebecca. “Take the Impossible ‘Literacy’ Test Louisiana Gave Black Voters in the 1960s.” Slate Magazine, 28 June 2013, https:// slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/voting-rights-and-the-supreme-court-the-impossible-literacy-test-louisiana-used-to-give-black-voters.html.

Astor, Maggie. “Voting Rights Were Already a Big 2020 Issue. Then Came the Gerrymandering Ruling.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 June 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering-democrats.html.

Criss, Doug. “Gerrymandering -- Explained.” CNN, Cable News Network, 27 June 2019, edition.cnn.com/2019/06/27/politics/what-is-gerrymandering-trnd/index.html.

“Gerrymandering in the United States.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 4 Aug. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States.

“Gerrymandering.” American Civil Liberties Union, www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/gerrymandering.

Harrow, Jason, and Staff Writer. “Gerrymandering Is the Civil Rights Issue of Our Day and Undermines Equality.” The Globe Post, 14 Aug. 2018, theglobepost.com/2018/08/13/gerrymandering-civil-rights/.

Shapiro, Howard M. “Geometry and Geography: Racial Gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 94, no. 1, 1984, p. 189., doi:10.2307/796320.

Soffen, Kim. “How Racial Gerrymandering Deprives Black People of Political Power.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 9 June 2016, www. washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/09/how-a-widespread-practice-to-politically-empower-african-americans-might-actually-harm-them/.

Washington Post. “Gerrymandering, Explained.” YouTube, 14 Nov. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGLRJ12uqmk.

Prokop, Andrew. “What Is Gerrymandering?” Vox, Vox, 5 Aug. 2014, www.vox.com/2014/8/5/17991938/what-is-gerrymandering.

Barasch, Emily. “The Twisted History of Gerrymandering in American Politics.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 20 Sept. 2012, www. theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/the-twisted-history-of-gerrymandering-in-american-politics/262369/.

Amy Gardner, Ted Mellnik. “Redistricting Activists Brace for Wall of Inaction as Battle Moves to States.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 13 Nov. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/12/redistricting-activists-brace-wall-inaction-battle-moves-states.

Root, Alex Tausanovitch and Danielle. “How Partisan Gerrymandering Limits Voting Rights.” Center for American Progress, 8 July 2020, www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2020/07/08/487426/partisan-gerrymandering-limits-voting-rights/.

Thernstrom, Abigail, et al. “Redistricting, Race, and the Voting Rights Act.” National Affairs, 2010, www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/ detail/redistricting-race-and-the-voting-rights-act.

Ingraham, Christopher. “This Is Actually What America Would Look like without Gerrymandering.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 13 Jan. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-is-actually-what-america-would-look-like-without-gerrymandering/.

Biello, Peter. “How Gerrymandering Skewed the 2016 Elections.” New Hampshire Public Radio, 27 June 2017, www.nhpr.org/post/how-gerrymandering-skewed-2016-elections.

Lieb, David A. “AP Analysis Shows How Gerrymandering Benefited GOP in 2016.” The Denver Post, The Denver Post, 24 June 2017, www. denverpost.com/2017/06/25/gerrymandering-2016-election/.

Astor, Maggie, and K. K. Rebecca. “What’s Stronger Than a Blue Wave? Gerrymandered Districts.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 29 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/29/us/politics/north-carolina-gerrymandering.html?mtrref=undefined.

Lieb, David A. “Analysis Indicates Partisan Gerrymandering Has Benefited GOP.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 25 June 2017, apnews.com/ fa6478e10cda4e9cbd75380e705bd380/AP-analysis-shows-how-gerrymandering-benefited-GOP-in-2016?utm_campaign=SocialFlow.

Stephanopoulos, Nicholas. “The Causes and Consequences of Gerrymandering.” Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, 2017, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2990638.

52 I

Citations

How Riots and Civil Rights Go Hand in Hand

Rothman, Lily. “Ferguson Verdict and ‘A System Cannot Fail’ W.E.B. DuBois Quote Origin.” Time, Time, 25 Nov. 2014, time.com/3604241/ w-e-b-dubois-quote-ferguson/.

British, Library Learning. “Women’s Suffrage Timeline.” British Library, 6 Feb. 2018, www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/womens-suffrage-timeline#authorBlock1.

Pruitt, Sarah. “What Happened at the Stonewall Riots? A Timeline of the 1969 Uprising.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 13 June 2019, www.history.com/news/stonewall-riots-timeline.

History.com, Editors. “Apartheid.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 7 Oct. 2010, www.history.com/topics/africa/apartheid.

Blakemore, Erin. “The Harsh Reality of Life Under Apartheid in South Africa.” History, 26 Apr. 2019, www.history.com/news/apartheid-policies-photos-nelson-mandela.

Timson, Jamie. “Nelson Mandela at 100: How Did South Africa’s Apartheid Start and End?” The Week UK, The Week UK, 18 July 2018, www.theweek.co.uk/94089/how-did-south-africa-s-apartheid-start-and-end.

Inequality Trends in South Africa A Multidimensional Diagnostic of Inequality, Statistics South Africa, Private Bag X44, Pretoria 0001, 2019. www.statssa.gov.za/publications/Report-03-10-19/Report-03-10-192017.pdf.

Sulla, Victor, and Precious Zikhali. “Overcoming Poverty and Inequality in South Africa.” The World Bank, 2018, doi:10.1596/29614.

Grinevicius , Jonas, and Mantas Kacerauskas. “Someone Compiled The Positive Changes That Are Happening Because Of The Protests.”

Bored Panda, June 2020, www.boredpanda.com/thread-of-positive-change-because-of-protests/?utm_source=google.

Gallagher, Michael. “Africa | The Birth and Death of Apartheid.” BBC News, BBC, 17 June 2002, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/575204.stm.

South African History Online, SAHO. “The Youth Struggle.” South African History Online, 8 June 2015, www.sahistory.org.za/article/ youth-struggle.

Boddy-Evans, Alistair. “What Caused a Student Uprising in Soweto in 1976?” ThoughtCo, 3 July 2019, www.thoughtco.com/student-uprising-soweto-riots-part-1-43425.

Allen, John. “Rabble-Rouser for Peace: the Authorized Biography of Desmond Tutu.” Internet Archive, New York: Free Press, 2006, archive. org/details/rabblerouserforp00john.

South African History Online, SAHO. “Youth and the National Liberation Struggle.” South African History Online, 21 Mar. 2011, www. sahistory.org.za/article/youth-and-national-liberation-struggle.

Resolution 392. The Security Council, 19 June 1976, http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/392. Accessed 17 Aug. 2020.

India Under the British Empire: The Story of Repression and the Fight for Independence

“Bengal Famine of 1943.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Aug. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#1942%E2%80%9345:_ Military_build-up,_inflation,_and_displacement.

“The Bengali Famine.” The International Churchill Society, 9 Dec. 2019, winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/ bengali-famine/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CChurchill%20is%20our%20hero%20because,American%20and%20Zionist%20Holocaust%20Denial.%E2%80%9D.

Brain, Jessica. “Timeline of the British Empire.” Historic UK, www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Timeline-Of-The-British-Empire/.

“British Raj.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 July 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj.

“Causes of Decline of Mughal Empire.” Tutorialspoint, www.tutorialspoint.com/modern_indian_history/modern_indian_history_causes_decline_of_mughal_empire.htm#:~:text=Foreign%20Invasion,almost%20destroyed%20its%20military%20power.

Choudhury, Soumen Dhar. “Bengal Famine of 1943: Misfortune or Imperial Schema.” SSRN, 20 Sept. 2019, poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery. php ID=17208608902900507112011210000607700005908003408605905607208407307411809707409210602706004904902601912305 11090041090691160100641110250070160510871160130830800091001260690140490710121190200831150251070970230860840760 88064115103102110074095095001114070094&EXT= pdf

Clarke, Stephen. “In Good Company: Re-Evaluating the Legacy of the East India Company.” History Today, History Today, 16 Sept. 2014, www.historytoday.com/good-company-re-evaluating-legacy-east-india-company.

“Company Rule in India.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Aug. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India.

“Defence of India Act 1915.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 June 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_India_Act_1915.

“Dharasana Satyagraha.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Apr. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharasana_Satyagraha.

“East India Company.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Aug. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Slavery _1621%E2%80%931843.

“Government of India Act 1858.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 May 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1858.

Hamlin, Rebecca. “Civil Rights.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 24 Mar. 2020, www.britannica.com/topic/civil-rights.

History.com Editors. “Salt March.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 10 June 2010, www.history.com/topics/india/salt-march#:~:text=The%20Salt%20March%2C%20which%20took,distance%20of%20some%20240%20miles.

“Indian Indenture System.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 July 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_indenture_system#Government_ of_British_India_regulations.

“Indian Rebellion of 1857.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Aug. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857.

“Indian Slavery Act, 1843.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 May 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Slavery_Act,_1843.

“Jallianwala Bagh Massacre.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 31 July 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre#cite_note20.

Citations

I 53

Kuchay, Bilal. “Churchill’s Policies to Blame for 1943 Bengal Famine: Study.” India News | Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera, 1 Apr. 2019, www. aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/churchill-policies-blamed-1943-bengal-famine-study-190401155922122.html.

Landow, George P. “The British East India Company — the Company That Owned a Nation (or Two).” The British East India Company the Company That Owned a Nation (or Two), 10 Dec. 2019, www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/india/eic.html.

Maya Oppenheim @mayaoppenheim. “Winston Churchill Killed as Many as the Worst Genocidal Dictators of the 20th Century, Says Indian Politician.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 8 Sept. 2017, www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html.

Pinkston, Bonnie. “Documenting the British East India Company and Their Involvement in the East Indian Slave Trade.” The Aquila Digital Community, The University of Southern Mississippi, 3 Oct. 2018, aquila.usm.edu/slisconnecting/vol7/iss1/10/.

Pti. “Bengal Famine of 1943 Caused by British Policy Failure, Not Drought: Study.” The Economic Times, Economic Times, 20 Mar. 2019, economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/bengal-famine-of-1943-caused-by-british-policy-failure-not-drought-study/articleshow/68495710.cms.

“Rowlatt Act.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 25 June 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowlatt_Act.

Safi, Michael. “Churchill’s Policies Contributed to 1943 Bengal Famine – Study.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 29 Mar. 2019, www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study

“Sarojini Naidu.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 July 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarojini_Naidu#Death_and_legacy.

Schultz, Kai. “India Still Awaits Apology From Britain for Massacre in Amritsar 100 Years Ago.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/04/13/world/asia/jallianwala-bagh-massacre-india-britain.html.

Singh, Prakhar. “Real Causes of the Devastating Bengal Famine, 1943.” Medium, Medium, 2 May 2018, medium.com/@Prakhar__Singh/ real-causes-of-the-devastating-bengal-famine-1943-daac8389495e.

“Slavery in Britain.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Aug. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Abolition.

“Slavery in India.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Aug. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_India#Indentured_labor_system.

Tharoor, Shashi. “Opinion | In Winston Churchill, Hollywood Rewards a Mass Murderer.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 10 Mar. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/

Holland, James. “James Holland.” James Holland’s Griffon Merlin, James Holland, Https://Www.griffonmerlin.com/Wp-Content/Uploads/2015/09/Logo-Griffon-Merlin.png, 19 Jan. 2018, www.griffonmerlin.com/2018/01/19/the-bengal-famine-was-churchill-to-blame/.

OK Is History Repeating Itself? An Outline of Police Brutality in the USA

Corbould, Clare. “The Fury in US Cities Is Rooted in a Long History of Racist Policing, Violence and Inequality.” The Conversation, 1 July 2020, theconversation.com/the-fury-in-us-cities-is-rooted-in-a-long-history-of-racist-policing-violence-and-inequality-139752

“George Floyd: How the USA’s history has shaped today’s police brutality” BBC News, 05 Jun 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/ av/52921989/george-floyd-how-the-usa-s-history-has-shaped-today-s-police-brutality

Philimon, Wenei. “Not Just George Floyd: Police Departments Have 400-Year History of Racism.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 7 June 2020, www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/07/black-lives-matters-police-departments-have-long-history-racism/3128167001/.

North, Anna. “How Racist Policing Took over American Cities, Explained by a Historian.” Vox, Vox, 6 June 2020, www.vox. com/2020/6/6/21280643/police-brutality-violence-protests-racism-khalil-muhammad.

Casas, Angelica, et al. Early American Policing - Runaway Slave Patrols. BBC News, BBC, 8 June 2020, www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-52943128/early-american-policing-runaway-slave-patrols.

“Fatal Force: Police Shootings Database.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 22 Jan. 2020, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/.

Forbes, Flores A., et al. “How a 13th Amendment Loophole Created America’s Carceral State.” The Crime Report, 4 June 2019, thecrimereport.org/2019/06/03/539754/.

Momodu, Samuel. “The Birmingham Campaign (1963) •.” Blackpast, 31 Aug. 2016, www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/birmingham-campaign-1963/.

The House Joint Resolution proposing the 13th amendment to the Constitution, January 31, 1865; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1999; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives.

OK Most Influential Speeches and Songs from the Civil Rights Movement

Jeff Wallenfeldt. “Selma March.” Britannica, July 2020, https://www.britannica.com/event/Selma-March.

Blackpast. “(1957) Roy Wilkins, “The clock will not be turned back”, Blackpast, July 2010, https://www.blackpast.org/african-americanhistory/1957-roy-wilkins-clock-will-not-be-turned-back/.

Amy Tikkanen. “I Have a Dream.” Britannica, July 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/I-Have-A-Dream.

Lyndon B. Johnson. “We Shall Overcome.” History Place, March 1965, https://www.historyplace.com/speeches/johnson.htm.

Noah Adams. “The Inspiring Force Of ‘We Shall Overcome’.” npr, August 2013, https://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/216482943/the-inspiring-force-of-we-shall-overcome.

Latifah Muhammad‍. “15 Powerful Songs That Embody and Support Black Lives Matter Movement.” ET, July 2020, https://www.etonline. com/15-powerful-songs-that-embody-and-support-black-lives-matter-movement-147773.

54 I

Citations

Brown DeNeen L. “Civil Rights Crusader Fannie Lou Hamer Defied Men - and Presidents - Who Tried to Silence Her.” The Washington Post, WP Company, October 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/10/06/civil-rights-crusader-fannie-lou-hamer-defied-menand-presidents-who-tried-to-silence-her/.

OK LGBT History Outside the Western World

Parker, Kim, and Ruth Igielnik. “What We Know About Gen Z So Far.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, 15 May 2020, www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far/.

Brandlin, Anne-Sophie. “10 Animal Species That Show How Being Gay Is Natural.” DW.COM, 2017, www.dw.com/en/10-animal-speciesthat-show-how-being-gay-is-natural/g-39934832.

Liu, Deming. “The Research of Qing Dynasty Homoerotic Atmosphere.” Airiti Library, 2009, www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?docid=U0002-2001200912383700.

Leung, Crystal. “Gay Emperors in Chinese History.” The World of Chinese, 27 June 2019, www.theworldofchinese.com/2019/06/gay-emperors-in-chinese-history/.

Krempholtz, Emily. “Some Native Americans Recognized Not Two, Not Three... But Five Genders.” Buzzworthy, 17 Sept. 2019, www. buzzworthy.com/native-americans-five-genders/.

Medicine, Beatrice. “Directions in Gender Research in American Indian Societies: Two Spirits and Other Categories.” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, vol. 3, no. 1, 2002, doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1024.

Loh, Morven, et al. “‘The Passion Of The Cut Sleeve’ - Homosexuality in Ancient China.” Fumble, 8 Feb. 2020, www.fumble.org.uk/homosexuality-ancient-china/.

Leland, John. “A Spirit of Belonging, Inside and Out.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Oct. 2006, www.nytimes. com/2006/10/08/fashion/08SPIRIT.html?_r=0.

Pember, Mary Annette. “‘Two Spirit’ Tradition Far From Ubiquitous Among Tribes.” Rewire.News, Rewire.News, 13 Oct. 2016, rewire.news/ article/2016/10/13/two-spirit-tradition-far-ubiquitous-among-tribes/.

The Impact of Civil Rights on the Roman Empire

Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Strahan & Cadell, London, 1776.

The Philosophical Groundings of Equality

Camus, Albert, and Justin O’Brien. The Myth of Sisyphus. Vintage International, 2018.

Camus, Albert. Stranger. Vintage International, 1989.

K., Le Guin Ursula. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. Townsend School, 1996.

Sartre, Jean-Paul, et al. Existentialism Is a Humanism. Manitoba Education and Advanced Learning, Alternate Formats, 2016.

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, and Constance Garnett. Demons. Dover Publications, Inc., 2017.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Beyond Good and Evil. Oregan France, 2020.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, et al. The Gay Science. Dover Publications, Inc., 2020.

Harris, Sam. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. Black Swan, 2012.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig, and Bertrand Russell. Tractatus Logico Philosophicus Logical-Philosophical Treatise). Really Simple Media, 2011.

Plantinga, Alvin. God and Other Minds. Cornell, 1992.

Plantinga, Alvin. Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God. Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 2009.

“PHILOSOPHY - Soren Kierkegaard.” Youtube, uploaded by The School of Life, 26 June 2015, youtube.com/watch?v=D9JCwkx558o.

“LITERATURE - Fyodor Dostoyevsky.” Youtube, uploaded by The School of Life, 27 May 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMmSdxZpseY.

“NIETZSCHE ON: The Superman.” Youtube, uploaded by The School of Life, 25 Sept. 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxiKqA-u8y4.

“Existentialism: Crash Course Philosophy #16.” Youtube, uploaded by CrashCourse, 6 June 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDvRdLMkHs.

“Debate: God and Morality: William Lane Craig vs Erik Wielenberg” Youtube, uploaded by ReasonableFaithOrg, Feb 23, 2018 https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=6iVyVJAMiOY

Citations

I 55

The Story of The Subway Vigilante

Chambers, Marcia. “GRAND JURY VOTES TO INDICT GOETZ ONLY ON GUN POSSESSION CHARGES.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Jan. 1985, www.nytimes.com/1985/01/26/nyregion/grand-jury-votes-to-indict-goetz-only-on-gun-possession-charges.html.

Court of Appeals of New York. People v Goetz, 28 May 1986, www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/p_goetz.htm.

Daley, Suzanne. “MAN TELLS POLICE HE SHOT YOUTHS IN SUBWAY TRAIN.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Jan. 1985, www.nytimes.com/1985/01/01/nyregion/man-tells-police-he-shot-youths-in-subway-train.html.

Desowitz, Bill. “‘Joker’: How Cesar Romero and Bernhard Goetz Inspired Joaquin Phoenix’s Look.” IndieWire, IndieWire, 8 Oct. 2019, www. indiewire.com/2019/10/joker-joaquin-phoenix-cesar-romero-bernard-goetz-1202179438/.

Domian, Christopher. “‘...YOU HAVE TO THINK IN A COLD-BLOODED WAY’.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 Apr. 1987, www.nytimes.com/1987/04/30/nyregion/you-have-to-think-in-a-cold-blooded-way.html?pagewanted=all.

Feldman, Richard. “Bernie Goetz ‘The Subway Gunman’ 30 Years Later.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 21 Feb. 2015, www.huffpost.com/entry/ bernie-goetz-the-subway-g_b_6369128.

Godfrey, Alex. “The ‘Hero’ Who’d Had Enough: How Subway Vigilante Bernhard Goetz Inspired Joker.” The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 8 Oct. 2019, www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/joker-true-crime-story-subway-vigilante-bernhard-goetz/.

Hornblower, Margot. “Intended to Gouge Eye Of Teen, Goetz Tape Says;`My Problem Was I Ran Out of Bullets’.” The Washington Post | HighBeam Research, The Washington Post, 14 May 1987, web.archive.org/web/20121023052130/www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1322122.html.

Johnson, Kirk. “GOETZ SHOOTING VICTIM SAYS YOUTHS WEREN’T THREATENING.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 May 1987, www.nytimes.com/1987/05/02/nyregion/goetz-shooting-victim-says-youths-weren-t-threatening.html.

Johnson, Kirk. “YOUTH SHOT IN SUBWAY SAYS HE DIDN’T APPROACH GOETZ.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 May 1987, www.nytimes.com/1987/05/20/nyregion/youth-shot-in-subway-says-he-didn-t-approach-goetz.html.

Kelley, Tina. “Still Seeking Payment From Bernard Goetz.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Sept. 2000, www.nytimes. com/2000/09/10/nyregion/following-up-still-seeking-payment-from-bernard-goetz.html?ref=darrellcabey.

Leo, John. “Behavior: Low Profile for a Legend Bernard Goetz.” TIME.com, 21 Jan. 1985, web.archive.org/web/20130822234059/www. time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,956277,00.html.

Lyall, Sarah. “N.A.A.C.P. LEADER SEEKS FEDERAL CASE ON GOETZ.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 June 1987, www. nytimes.com/1987/06/20/nyregion/naacp-leader-seeks-federal-case-on-goetz.html.

Pitt, David E. “BLACKS SEE GOETZ VERDICT AS BLOW TO RACE RELATIONS.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 June 1987, www.nytimes.com/1987/06/18/nyregion/blacks-see-goetz-verdict-as-blow-to-race-relations.html.

Press, Associated. “Bail Slashed for Man Who Shot Four on Subway.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 7 Feb. 1985, articles.latimes. com/1985-02-07/news/mn-5137_1_bernhard-goetz.

Raab, Selwyn. “4 YOUTHS SHOT BY GOETZ FACED CRIMINAL COUNTS.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Jan. 1985, www. nytimes.com/1985/01/10/nyregion/4-youths-shot-by-goetz-faced-criminal-counts.html.

Biography.com Editors. “Bernhard Goetz Biography” Biography.com, 12 May 2020, https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/bernhard-goetz

Brooks, Michael. “Stories and Verdicts: Bernhard Goetz and New York in Crisis.” College Literature, vol. 25, no. 1, 1998, pp. 77–93.

JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25112354

Hamlin, Rebecca. “Civil Rights.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 24 Mar. 2020, www.britannica.com/topic/civil-rights.

“Bernard Goetz.” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/name/nm1249570/.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 5 Nov. 2019, www.britannica.com/topic/National-Association-for-the-Advancement-of-Colored-People.

“Crack, Reefer, and the ‘Subway Vigilante’: The Strange Saga of Bernhard Goetz and Other Loathsome Tales.” Points: The Blog of the Alcohol & Drugs History Society, 5 Aug. 2014, https://pointsadhs.com/2014/08/05/crack-reefer-and-the-subway-vigilante-the-strange-saga-of-bernhard-goetz-and-other-loathsome-tales/.

“Where Is ‘Subway Vigilante’ Bernie Goetz, Who Shot Four Black Teens, Now?” Oxygen Official Site, 13 May 2020, https://www.oxygen. com/true-crime-buzz/trial-by-media-where-is-subway-vigilante-bernie-goetz-now.

When Should We Address Inequality?

Time Is Money Artworks of Fantasy by Anatoly Kozelskiy for Sale - ART.Biz. http://art.biz/picture/anatoly-kozelskiy-time-is-money/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2020.

Ustinova, Anastasia. “Have, Have-Nots: News Group Examines Wealth Inequality Ahead of 2020 Elections.” Karma, 6 Nov. 2019, https:// karmaimpact.com/have-have-nots-news-group-examines-wealth-inequality-ahead-of-2020-elections/.

On The Jewish Question by Karl Marx https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2020.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.

Bertram, Christopher. “Jean Jacques Rousseau.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 26 May 2017, plato.stanford. edu/entries/rousseau/#IdeaGeneWill.

56 I

Citations

Image Citations

Ahead of 2020 Elections.” Karma, 6 Nov. 2019, https://karmaimpact.com/have-have-nots-news-group-examines-wealth-inequality-aheadof-2020-elections/.

Alexander, Colin. “Colonialism in India Was Traumatic – Including for Some of the British Officials Who Ruled the Raj.” The Conversation, http://theconversation.com/colonialism-in-india-was-traumatic-including-for-some-of-the-british-officials-who-ruled-the-raj-77068. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

Bloomberg - Are You a Robot? https://www.bloomberg.com/tosv2.html?vid=&uuid=91c56cd0-1bfe-11eb-8775-a1c638993eae&url=L25ld3MvYXJ0aWNsZXMvMjAxMy0wOC0xMy9ob3ctcmFjZS1hbmQtaW5lcXVhbGl0eS1pbmZsdWVuY2UtdGhlLXNpemUtb2YtdXJiYW4tcG9saWNlLWZvcmNlcw==. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

“British Conquest of India, 1753–1858.” The Map Archive, https://themaparchive.com/product/british-conquest-of-india-17531858/.

Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

“Celebrate Women’s Suffrage, but Don’t Whitewash the Movement’s Racism.” ACLU of Maine, 27 Aug. 2018, https://www.aclumaine.org/ en/news/celebrate-womens-suffrage-dont-whitewash-movements-racism.

“Economic Inequality, Part 1: Where We Are and Why.” Darden Ideas to Action, https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/economic-inequality-part-1. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

Economist, The. “Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far?” Medium, 18 Sept. 2018, https://medium.com/@the_economist/has-political-correctness-gone-too-far-b16c473fbce.

“Have, Have-Nots: News Group Examines Wealth Inequality Ahead of 2020 Elections.” Karma, 6 Nov. 2019, https://karmaimpact.com/ have-have-nots-news-group-examines-wealth-inequality-ahead-of-2020-elections/.

“Heritage of Resistance: Re-Enactment to Honor Slave Rebellion.” Black Voice News, 8 Nov. 2019, https://www.blackvoicenews. com/2019/11/07/heritage-of-resistance-re-enactment-to-honor-slave-rebellion/.

Law in Ancient Rome, The Twelve Tables - Crystalinks. https://www.crystalinks.com/romelaw.html. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

Magazine, Contexts. Black Lives and Police Tactics Matter - Contexts. https://contexts.org/articles/black-lives-and-police-tactics-matter/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

Magazine, Contexts. Black Lives and Police Tactics Matter - Contexts. https://contexts.org/articles/black-lives-and-police-tactics-matter/.

Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

“Mexico’s Time Zones.” Mexperience, https://www.mexperience.com/mexicos-time-zones/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

Subscribe to Read | Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/31ed22f8-47a6-11ea-aee2-9ddbdc86190d. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

Ustinova, Anastasia. “Have, Have-Nots: News Group Examines Wealth Inequality Ahead of 2020 Elections.” Karma, 6 Nov. 2019, https:// karmaimpact.com/have-have-nots-news-group-examines-wealth-inequality-ahead-of-2020-elections/.

---. “Have, Have-Nots: News Group Examines Wealth Inequality Ahead of 2020 Elections.” Karma, 6 Nov. 2019, https://karmaimpact.com/ have-have-nots-news-group-examines-wealth-inequality-ahead-of-2020-elections/.

Citations

I 57

Credits Editor-in-Chief Sally Wang, Year 13 Wu Authorship Jolie Chan, Year 11 Wu Sophie Ho, Year 12 Wu Sophie Hunka, Year 13 Gellhorn Alexandra Joseph-Hui, Year 9 Gellhorn Vienna Kwan, Year 11 Keller Julien Levieux, Year 13 Churchill Se Lyn Lim, Year 12 Wu Amber Liu, Year 13 Keller Stella Liu, Year 11 Keller Rehan Rosha, Year 13 Churchill Jasmin Schneider, Year 13 Gellhorn Harry Streatfield, Year 13 Peel Hanson Wen, Year 9 Peel Joshua Yen, Year 12 Shaftesbury Arts and Illustration Kayan Tam, Year 13 Wu (Head of Illustrations) Jarra Sisowath, Year 13 Gellhorn Joy Chen, Y10 Gellhorn Brynn Gordon, Y13 Wu Jasmine Hui, Y13 Wu Rachel Li, Y12 Wu Selyn Lim, Y12 Wu Reika Oh, Y11 Gellhorn Jolie Wong, Y13 Keller Ingrid Ng Editing Amber Liu, Year 13 Keller (Head of Editing) Cindy Zhang, Year 13 Wu (Head of Editing) Charles Callaghan, Year 13 Peel Haley Chan, Year 13 Wu Annie Kim, Year 12 Wu Nicole Lau, Year 9 Keller Julien Levieux, Year 13 Churchill Amber Liu, Year 13 Keller Sophie Putman, Year 13 Wu Jarra Sisowath, Year 13 Gellhorn Sally Wang, Year 13 Wu Charmaine Wong, Year 13 Wu Cindy Zhang, Year 13 Wu Academic Supervision Ms A. King

58 I

Credits

The HH Team Charles Callaghan Jett Li Amber Liu Ingrid Ng Sophie Putman Kayan Tam Sally Wang Cindy Zhang

Credits

I 59