The 'colour issue,' or racism, was acknowledged as a worldwide problem back in the early 1940's, when Negroes had begun to lose faith in the Democratic party. I'm wondering why they had any faith in it in the first place, considering the political parties were never really designed to give free and unbiased respite for anyone who agreed with them, only whites. White Democrats favored the Ku Klux Klan, after all, and until presidential intervention worked to eliminate them in the late 1800's, men in power kept the Negro 'in check.' Frederick Douglass did great things for Negro awareness, however the colour issue was slow to die, as we see it still lingers in modern day.
When the Negroes turned away from the Democratic party and toward the Republican party, they essentially turned toward Big Business. In theory this is a fantastic idea because the free market always rights itself due to competition and ebbing and flowing wants and needs as well as resources and labor. The market is an invisible hand, as Adam Smith says, right? In theory, yes, though that applies to the participants within the marketplace. The invisible hand does not pluck those out of depravity and plop them into the marketplace; one has to be participating in the marketplace for the invisible hand theory to apply. "The coloured worker cannot be blamed for feeling no solidarity with his white comrades. The gap between their standard of living and his own is so vast that it makes any difference which may exist in the West seem negligible." (p. 493) This is why drinking out of the same water fountain is so significant; it says that everyone is subject to the same conditions and availed the same resources. Hence, the separation carries a demeaned meaning. The Negro standard of living was lesser than the White standard of living, depriving them of opportunities and a clean slate to participate in the free market, so, hopping from the Democrats to the Big Business Republicans isn't going to immediately mend others' civic orientation with them.
In the early 1940's the colour issue had already been present for hundreds of years. What was the continual problem? "There is no solution until the living-standards of the thousand million people who are not "white" can be forced up to the same level of our own. But as this might mean temporarily lowering our standards the subject is systematically avoided by the Left and Right alike." (p. 493) Lowering the standards in this context doesn't mean self-deprication, yet implies simple resource theory. If there are ten of something and two people to divide them among, there are no scenarios that can result in the sum exceeding ten. Hence, if Negroes are to be given an opportunity to enter the market freely, allowed a similar standard of living (which consumes resources, jobs, real estate, etc.) then there are less for others to consume. This isn't a pity-scenario, because the market is based in competition, with the more economically effective participant obtaining more resources and wealth. True economics is thus not prejudicial or biased, it's an organism pertaining to unlimited human wants filtered through limited resources. So the more any one of us have, the less others can have, should the wealth still be worth something to purchase with (based on inflation, international market, blah blah blah.) So if the Negro standard of living were allowed to increase, it would indeed shock the system, and others' standard of living would decrease, but only until the system--since a true free market is self-correcting--rights itself. Negro prevention in the market is short-term thinking anyway, because the more participants a truly free markets has, the stronger it is.
This is a challenge to this day, no matter how blue-in-the-face economists are about allowing the market to function without regulation or other prejudice. Orwell suggests that, "And there is one small precaution which is not much trouble, and which can perhaps do a little to mitigate the horrors of the colour war. That is to avoid using insulting nicknames." (p. 493) Domestically, this would be an effective start considering our mentality probably follows our words more than our words follow our mentality. If something keeps coming out of one's mouth, whether or not one believes it, they validate and legitimize it, therefore paving the road to true belief. So when Orwell says we need to stop using insulting nicknames, despite how socially 'harmless' they may seem, I commend him, because he's suggesting a way of cleaning up our minds.
Click the RSS FEED button below to receive notification of new Orwell 365 posts.