It is tempting to assure ourselves that oppression, in the absence of slavery, legally mandated segregation, and its other overt manifestations, has been eradicated from modern society––we cover ourselves with a blanket of goodwill and inclusivity, and pat ourselves on the back as we remain oblivious to the fact that oppression’s lessened tangibility does not actually negate its existence nor its ability to cause suffering. In 1963, when society still demanded rather than overlooked oppression, civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” in direct response to the clergymen who criticized his peaceful demonstrations against segregation in the city of Birmingham, Alabama. King argued that positive change …show more content…
For instance, in George Orwell’s 1984, the whole continent of Oceania is oppressed to such a degree that not even a person’s mind can escape from Big Brother’s pervasive propaganda. Winston, the novel’s protagonist, proves that revolution is futile: one’s only options are obedience or death. While yes, this an extreme example, more a warning for the future than a reflection of reality, the way Oceania’s sinister government officials deal with potential heretics––eliminating them from society––bears some resemblance to our own country’s methods of maintaining a racial hierarchy. As King stated, “Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application,” an idea that today’s legal system reinforces through its complicity in the villainization of African-American citizens. For example, in the United States, “Blacks are 5.1 more times likely to be incarcerated than whites,” a troubling statistic with profound implications: evidently, black people are the victims of unfair racial profiling––they are locked away for crimes that their white counterparts are far less likely to be accused or convicted of––which gives racists the fuel that they need to justify their bigotry, as well as disempowers a sizable percentage of those who have the potential to threaten …show more content…
Only people with a great deal of money have the means to alter the framework of society; and people with a great deal of money usually only alter society in ways that best suit their own interests. This, combined with the fact that African-American citizens are still being haunted by the same inescapable economic disenfranchisement that plagued the nation in King’s time, creates a catch-22 situation: you need wealth in order to shift the country’s economy in your favor, but to gain wealth in the first place, you need an economy that operates in your favor. The wave of discriminatory housing policies enacted under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency provided the framework for an enduring and ever-widening disparity between African-American and white wealth (today, “Black families in America earn just $57.30 for every $100 in income earned by white families,” plus, “For every $100 in white family wealth, black families hold just $5.04”) and this disparity both relies upon and promotes oppression (Badger). Therefore, if oppression were ever to end, it would have to be at the hands of the oppressors themselves, the people who thrive off of the economic and societal boost that they receive simply for being white and who could channel this boost into the eradication of their own preeminence. But when throughout the course of history have people ever fought for less