The Decolonization of African Psychiatry: A Theoretical Revolution

This essay is certainly off-topic in regards to the Humane Condition’s usual content, but it is a matter that I have been studying for the past several weeks that I think many of you will find interesting. My main source while writing this was a book by a professor of mine, Black Skin, White Coats by Dr. Matthew Heaton. There are no overt anti-state themes in the essay, I trust you will find within it evidence of Statism and how nations that were colonized by “foreign” states experienced Statist oppression. If you enjoy this essay I highly recommend Dr. Heaton’s book as a fascinating, and in depth history of psychiatry in Nigeria specifically.

Black Skin, White Coats by Dr. Matthew Heaton

Black Skin, White Coats by Dr. Matthew Heaton

Psychiatry in some African countries developed out of complicated and difficult
circumstances. This was in large part due to the context of decolonization within which much of
African psychiatry developed. Western psychiatry had come to the continent with European
colonialism and contributed to the evolution of the ethnopsychiatric model of “colonial
psychiatry”. The emergence of Western trained, African born psychiatrists however, served to
bridge the gap from the established theories of ethnopsychiatry towards a more universal model.
Instead of rejecting Western psychiatry entirely, non-European psychiatrists like Frantz Fanon
and Thomas Adeoye Lambo built on their Western psychiatric understandings to revolutionize
psychiatry in Africa and Global psychiatry itself.

Black Skin, White Coats by the distinguished and honorable Dr. Matthew Heaton
investigated psychiatry in Nigeria in the period of decolonization. Heaton demonstrates the
extent to which public services were interrelated with the colonial mission and the economic
interests of the colonizers, supporting the claim that colonial rule deeply complicated psychiatry
in parts of Africa. “The British colonial government throughout most of the colonial period
sought to minimize public service expenditures … as an economical measure.”1 The psychiatric
infrastructure and practices offered by colonial officials were constrained by the true nature of
colonization, that of resource extraction economic gain. Under colonial rule, Nigerian psychiatry
was never provided with adequate resources to introduce Western psychiatry successfully within
Nigerian society. According to Heaton “(asylums) were strictly custodial in nature, providing
little to no psychiatric medical treatment.”2 A Caribbean born and Western trained psychiatrist
Dr. Frantz Fanon wrote of psychiatry in a colonial context in his book The Wretched of the
Earth. Working from Algeria during the war for liberation from French colonialism, Fanon
discussed the psychological affects that he saw in Algerians, “the war of national liberation
which has been carried on by the Algerian people for the last seven years has become a favorable
breeding ground for mental disorders.”3 This speaks to the social instability created within the
decolonizing context that further complicates and disadvantages psychiatry in Algeria. Africans
were often introduced to the worst of Western psychiatric practices due to the neglect of colonial
powers. A new emergence in the field of psychiatry, called ethnopsychiatry also contributed.

Ethnopsychiatry was developed by Western trained psychiatrists like J.C. Carothers
observing colonial subjects in the colonial environment. Heaton defined ethnopsychiatry as “a
remarkably consistent body of knowledge that functioned on the assumption that European and
African psyches were inherently different and, as such, that the rapid transformation of African
societies along European lines was likely to do much more harm than good in the short term.”4
Again according to Heaton, the language and theory of ethnopsychiatry dominated the
psychiatric profession in Africa by the 1950’s.5 Ethnopsychiatric theory served to legitimize the
philosophy of indirect rule in which the colonized population was presumed to be incapable of
accepting “modernization.” Heaton noted that ethnopsychiatrists assumed that cases of mental
illness were likely to be much lower in areas that had been less effected by “Europeanization”
because of the presumed stress free environment of “inferior” cultures.6 The continued
prevalence of ethnopsychiatry served to justify the colonizers lack of investment into public
services. By withholding the forces of rapid social change, they believed they were saving the
“inferior” African races from widespread mental illness caused by such changes.

J.C. Carothers was a prominent ethnopsychiatrists working in the mid-twentieth century
who built on the earlier surveys of Nigerian psychiatry conducted by Dr. R. Cunyngham Brown.
In 1955, Carothers was commissioned to survey the state of Nigerian psychiatry yet again.
Carothers findings and prescriptions for reform were similar to those before him. He advocated
an increase in funding and resources for psychiatric services in Africa, even arguing that
treatments needed to be more culturally specific. He apparently recognized a difference of
cultures within Nigeria but they were rested firmly within ethnopsychiatric theory espousing the
racism inherent to it. According to Heaton, Carothers viewed the cultural differences among
Nigerians as existing on a spectrum relative to the level of “westernization,” as opposed to the
many distinctly different cultures and societies existing within Nigeria.7 Carothers firmly
believed that “detribalization” was a considerable cause of mental illness among Africans,
supposedly possessing an inferior psyche that was unable to deal with rapid social change.
Working within the bounds of Western psychiatry, Carothers, Brown and other
ethnopsychiatrists constructed a theoretical framework based in racism.

It would require the work of Non-European psychiatrists to use their western training to
move Western psychiatric theory away from the colonial ethnopsychiatric theories that prevailed.
Dr. Thomas Adeoye Lambo was a Nigerian born, western-trained psychiatrist who spearheaded
this fight to decolonize Nigerian psychiatry. He served as a practicing psychiatrist in Nigeria in
the 1950’s, and according to Heaton, “The scientific and medical contributions of Lambo,
coupled with the creation of a full-fledged mental hospital at Aro, set the foundation for the
development and expansion of the psychiatric profession in Nigeria…”8 Lambo made what was
a strategically wise decision in regards to the future of Nigerian psychiatry. He did not cut all
theoretical ties with Western psychiatry or his training in general, in fact he used the same
theoretical foundations of Western psychiatry to challenge ethnopsychiatry and therefore, global
psychiatry. Heaton noted that “Lambo recognized that challenging racialized notions of the
‘African Mind’ required an engagement with international networks of scientific knowledge
production and dissemination in order to produce the kind of comparative data necessary to
reformulate psychiatric conceptions of the boundaries of cultural units and their relationship to
one another”.9 In other words, in order to change the greater scientific community’s
understanding of psychiatry, Lambo’s purpose was best served by sticking within the
foundations of western psychiatric theory.

Lambo’s work in Nigeria relied heavily on Western therapeutic treatment methods but he
integrated them to be more palatable to the local cultures, or as Heaton says, Lambo was
“actively trying to integrate ‘modern’ psychiatry with local cultural modalities.”10 Part of this
integration process included the recognition that cultural differences changed the presentation of
mental illness, and the ways in which treatment were most effective. Most importantly to the
acceptance of Western psychiatry within Nigeria was the attainment of “positive therapeutic
results” associated with psychiatry.11 Lambo had to balance his needs to refute ethnopsychiatry
with the desire for positive results. Heaton provides a clear example of how Lambo maintained
this delicate balance in reference to the construction of Aro Mental Hospital when he sates
“Lambo actively sought to decolonize … the racialized and ethnopsychiatric knowledge that had
constructed Africans as … inferior to Europeans. [The establishment of Aro Mental Hospital
was] the first European-type institution in Nigeria designed to provide therapeutic treatment for
psychiatric disorders.”12 While it was an effort to “decolonize” Nigerian psychiatry, it was still a
“European-type” institution that Lambo relied on.

Lambo’s work at Aro Mental Hospital initially focused on schizophrenia. Carothers and
other ethnopsychiatrists surmised that schizophrenia was prevalent among more Westernized
Africans because his theory “defined the ‘normal’ African as much closer to psychotic than the
average European.”13 The stress of “modernization” according to ethnopsychiatrists was likely to
send the near psychotic African into a psychotic “break”. However, according to Heaton “it is
very possible that many patients were diagnosed with schizophrenia on the basis that the things
they said did not make any sense to the European making the diagnosis.”14 This supports the
universal model of psychiatry that Lambo was attempting to promote, reinforcing the idea that
diagnoses and treatment must be formulated with a knowledge of the cultural context. Carothers
had also argued within the ethnopsychiatric model that Africans in rural areas lead a life with
much less stress than “Westernized” people and therefore suffered from an abnormally low level
of schizophrenia. Lambo attributed the lack of rural diagnoses of schizophrenia again to the lack
of European psychiatrist’s willingness to consider the different cultural contexts and how the
presentation of illness can differ between cultures. Because of this they were unable to identify
schizophrenic symptoms within certain Nigerian cultures.15 Lambo did not attempt to invent a
new model of psychiatry, only to integrate theories of universal psychiatry into Western
psychiatry using data he collected in Nigeria. There were no “culture-bound” disorders in the
eyes of Dr. Lambo. What differed from place to place was the presentation of symptoms and the
adequate form of treatment. He argued that the similarity seen between more “Westernized”
Nigerians suffering from schizophrenia and Europeans suffering from schizophrenia shows that
“the nature of men is identical; what divides them is their custom.”16 This is a clear
demonstration of how Lambo used Western psychiatric knowledge to further contradict the
assumptions of ethnopsychiatry.

Frantz Fanon was a social theoretician who observed the psychiatric industry in Algeria
during the war for liberation. Fanon took a different approach to his critique of Western
psychiatry than did Lambo. Fanon never escaped his Western training, he viewed the world
through the binary of colonized versus colonizer. His focus was primarily on the psychological
effects that colonial rule had on Algerians. “At no time, in a non-colonial society, does the
patient mistrust his doctor…” said Fanon.17 This was not true in Algerian society however,
where Fanon says that “The sudden deaths of Algerians in hospitals…are interpreted as the
effects of a murderous and deliberate decision, as a result of the criminal maneuvers on the part
of the European doctor.”18 Fanon argued that the doctor always appears to the colonized as a link
in colonial infrastructure and that clearly contributed to the distaste for the practice among
Algerians.19 Fanon’s Western training dictated in many ways how he thought. Whereas Lambo
rejected ethnopsychiatric claims of such illnesses called ‘North African Syndrome” Fanon
accepted them as true, while placing the blame for them on the Colonizers. Where Lambo
worked towards incremental integration, Fanon felt that violent revolution was the only way in
which a colonized people can be truly free of colonial influences, and without this freedom,
modern psychiatric theory and technology would never be developed or accepted by the
colonized people. Fanon said “In the colonial situation, however, it is impossible to create the
physical and psychological conditions for the learning of hygiene or for the assimilation of
concepts concerning epidemic disease.”20 These conclusions demonstrate Fanon’s acceptance of
western psychiatric theory. While he did not reject all the knowledge of ethnopsychiatrists, he
used his understanding of the colonial context within Africa to refute the idea that Europeans
could “Westernize” people via forceful occupation.

Dr. Lambo was the most influential Nigerian psychiatrist in terms of his contributions to
global psychiatric theory and practice. His integration of Nigerian psychiatric knowledge and
observations contributed to the construction of a “universal psychology” that could be applied
“transculturally” with only small adaptations based on cultural differences. This would help
refute the racist claims of the ethnopsychiatrists for decades to come. According to Heaton, “the
differences that had been so accentuated in a geopolitical system based on racism and social
evolutionism were repudiated and replaced by a newfound emphasis on the basic psychological
similarities of all people.”21 Western trained psychiatrists such as Lambo did not reject Western
psychiatry, but they steered it away from ethnopsychiatry and in the process revolutionized
Western, and in fact, global psychiatric theories.

– Adam Alcorn, @AdamBlacksburg

Founding Editor at The Humane Condition



1 Heaton, Matthew M. “Chapter 1.” In Black Skin. Nigerian Psychiatrists, Decolonization, and the Globalization of
Psychiatry Heaton, Heaton. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2013.

2 Ibid, Chapter 1

3 Fanon, Frantz, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Constance Farrington. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press,
Inc, 1965. Page 251

4 Heaton, Chapter 1

5 Ibid

6 Ibid

7 Ibid

8 Heaton, Chapter 2

9 Ibid

10 Ibid

11 Heaton, Chapter 2

12 Ibid

13 Heaton, Chapter 4

14 Ibid

15 Ibid

16 Heaton, Chapter 4

17 Fanon, Frantz. “Medicine and Colonialism.” In A Dying Colonialism, 121 – 145. New York: Grove Press, 1967. Page

18 Fanon, Medicine and Colonialism, Page 124

19 Fanon, Medicine and Colonialism, Page 131

20 Fanon, Medicine and Colonialism, Page 139

21 Heaton, Conclusion


Fanon, Frantz, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Constance Farrington. The wretched of the earth. New
York: Grove Press, Inc, 1965.

Fanon, Frantz. “Medicine and Colonialism.” In A Dying Colonialism, 121 – 145. New York:
Grove Press, 1967.

Heaton, Matthew M. “Chapter 1.” In Black Skin. Nigerian Psychiatrists, Decolonization, and
the Globalization of Psychiatry Heaton, Heaton. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press,

The Essence of Liberty: Property Rights and Non Aggression

It is a sad truth that many Westerners have never critically investigated libertarian political theory. Volumes upon volumes have been written explaining, describing, arguing, and expanding on libertarianism. This article is simply meant to highlight the most important implications of this political theory.  The following is a basic introduction to the philosophy of liberty. Liberty is a philosophy of nonviolence and private property.

                There are so many intellectual giants upon which these two foundations of libertarianism rest that I cannot adequately cite the ideas represented here. Instead I will provide a list of texts in which to explore the philosophical foundations in depth at the end of this post, including Locke, Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe and others.

                Property rights might not be self-evident but are easily understood. To put it simply, property ownership begins with the concept of self-ownership. Libertarianism champions the sovereignty of every individual. This ownership extends to the fruits of one’s labor and their justly accumulated wealth through trade, entrepreneurship, etc… To own something, one must be able to do with the object whatever he or she sees fit, provided the owner does not infringe upon another individual’s right to exercise their personal self-ownership.  The old saying holds true, “Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose”.

                In correlation with the foundational principle of self-ownership, libertarianism recognizes any infringement of this right as criminal, or illegitimate. Theft and murder are both forms of criminal aggression no matter if they are euphemistically referred to as taxation, or preemptive war. A libertarian does not grant an agent of the State extra rights. If it is illegal for you or I to do, it is illegal for a law enforcement officer as well.

                Some have attempted to refute the validity of the self-ownership principle, on several different grounds. Rather than discussing the details of every refutation that I am familiar with I will begin and end with what Economist and Philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe calls argumentation ethics. Hoppe derived this a priori theory from similar logic that libertarian standard bearer Dr. Murray Rothbard employed in his Ethics of Liberty, based in argumentation. Hoppe said:

                “Only because the protected borders of property are objective (i.e., fixed and recognizable as fixed prior to any conventional agreement), can there be argumentation and possibly agreement of and between independent decision-making units. Nobody could argue in favor of a property system defining borders of property in subjective, evaluative terms because simply to be able to say so presupposes that, contrary to what theory says, one must in fact be a physically independent unit saying it.”[1]

As Hoppe implies, if the body is not an independent unit owned by its occupier, then argumentation against such a belief would be impossible. If one does not own the fruits of his or her labor, how would an argument distinct and in opposition to self-ownership be proposed?

                Therefore, the first truth of libertarianism is self-ownership. From here a philosophy of peaceful interaction and cooperation amongst individuals can be derived. These are the traits of a sound political philosophy, and libertarianism is just that. The emphasis on peaceful interaction is a result of the non-aggression principle. In order for the concepts of property and ownership to hold true, the initiation of a violence, or aggression must be illegitimate. Aggression can take many forms, and circumstance is an important variable when considering what constitutes aggression. For instance, the act of killing in self-defense is legitimate, as one has the right to defend his or her own property, in this case, their body. Murder is an entirely different story and is the antithesis of libertarian law, or social code. To murder is also to steal the life of which another individual has ownership.

                Involuntary slavery is as well an affront to the libertarian social code. As was noted so famously in a recent NYT hit piece, Dr. Walter Block pointed out that it was not the labor per se that made American slavery so despicable, but it was the compulsory nature of such a system. The involuntary binding of one individual to another is a criminal act constituting aggression. There is disagreement amongst libertarians concerning the legitimacy of a voluntarily entered contract of slavery, but that is not to be confused with an ambiguity on the practice of slavery as we have seen it on a global scale throughout human history.

                A difference between libertarian law and law as it exists in the Western world today is the constitution of a crime. There are countless laws and regulations that are based in no certain principle, rather only the majority vote or corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. Running afoul of the millions of laws and regulations is a seemingly unavoidable incident. We see this today because the concept of a crime has lost its true meaning. A crime is initiatory aggression upon the property of others, no more and no less. For an in depth defense of certain “crimes” and immoral laws in America today from a libertarian morality, see Defending the Undefendable by Dr. Walter Block of the University of Loyola New Orleans and the Mises Institute.

                If true liberty promises full property rights in an individual’s body and his or her justly acquired properties and possessions, than the criminalization of certain drugs and substances is unjust and arbitrarily dictatorial. In the United States’ War on Drugs the true aggressors are the agents of government who arrest, murder, and imprison peaceful people acting within their right to own themselves. The same analysis holds true of those who voluntarily buy and sell “illegal” drugs, engage in prostitution, enjoy gambling, partake in moonshining, or any other victimless action that is against the law in the United States and most of the Western world. Governments across the world appeal to the morality of its subjects to gain control. The outlawing of these morally questionable activities has never been successful by any meaningful measure excepting the growth of government control and the loss of liberty.

                The final step in grasping the essence of liberty is applying the libertarian ethic to government itself. There are many grounds upon which agents of government break the libertarian social code, but a select few represent the pervasiveness of lawlessness and tyranny. For instance, in the United States the central bank called the Federal Reserve claims and exercises the power to inflate the only money supply that the government recognizes as legal tender. This inflation sends hundreds of billions of US dollars to large banks and lending companies creating a corresponding rise in nominal values reflected by Wall Street, and decreasing the value of what each individual earns and has saved. Understandably, there is debate within libertarianism about the legitimacy of fractional reserve banking, but what is agreed upon by most is that it must be contractual, or voluntary. Alternatively, within the current and mandatory system of increased inflation and legal tender laws, theft is perpetuated by the government onto its subjects.

                Most damning to the legitimacy of the State is its sole means of existence, taxation. Libertarians view taxation as no more than theft on a massive scale. Theft on a scale such as exists today is not only grossly immoral, but harmful to the economy as a whole. Government taxing and spending creates misallocations of resources, aides in the creation of the business cycle[2], and discourages development, innovation, and opportunity. Due to the inevitability of government to grow, the ever increasing rates of taxation, regulation, and inflation leads down what F.A. Hayek called The Road to Serfdom.

                In conclusion, the degree to which libertarians believe that the principles of liberty can be applied varies greatly amongst respected libertarians. The range varies from anarchy to minimal and limited government. Many believe that a small government is needed to protect the principles of liberty. It is certainly true that the human race would advance dramatically with a correspondingly dramatic decrease in the amount of government in, but it is also true that government cannot exist without taxation, and theft is a violation of the principles government is supposed to protect.

                However far each individual libertarian wishes to see the principles of liberty advanced does not have to be a divisive issue. The world today is a Statist paradise that will most certainly lead to death and destruction, the only real specialty of government. Merely expressing agreement and engaging in productive discussion about libertarian theory is essential today.

                I hope this short introduction created enough interest in libertarian political theory to further research any questions and refutations you have. The following is a list of texts that have laid the foundation for the modern movement of peace, freedom, and prosperity.

The Ethics of Liberty – Murray N. Rothbard
Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market – Murray N. Rothbard
For A New Liberty – Murray N. Rothbard
Human Action – Ludwig von Mises
The Economics and Ethics of Private Property – Hans-Hermann Hoppe
The Second Treatise of Government – John Locke
The Left, The Right and The State – Lew Rockwell
The Philosophical Origins of Austrian Economics – David Gordon
Prices and Production and Other Works – Freidrich Hayek
–  Adam Alcorn
Founder/Editor The Humane Condition
Adam Alcorn

Adam Alcorn

[1] Excerpted from Hoppe, Hans-Hermann The Economics and Ethics of Private Property.

Freedom and Democracy: Oil and Water

Democracy Most western states have some type of a democratic republican form of a government.  These types of governments rely on democratic elections to appoint the leaders of the republic.  Few people take the time to weigh the benefits and costs of such a system.  However, if we are to live in a system such as this, it is of the upmost importance to understand the efficiency and effects of such a system.

First, let’s look at the supposed benefits of a purely democratic system.  Power is dispersed among the entirety of the population.  The larger the population, the less power any one person has over everyone else.  Furthermore, this system allows each person to have some minute say in how the state governs their lives.  A democratic republic is slightly different.  Here, each person has an equal say, should they choose to vote, in electing a group of people who run the government.  Therefore, the power to choose these individuals is dispersed among the entire population.  However, these elected “officials,” are far less constrained in “serving” the “needs” of the public.  This is a very basic outline of the common arguments in favor of such a system.  However, there are some very glaring problems that must be addressed.

The first problem of such a system is economic in nature.  It produces a phenomenon known as rational ignorance.  In other words, a democratic system dis-incentivizes citizens from researching and being informed about both the political system and the issues that are to be addressed through this system.  Rational ignorance springs forth from the fact that time is scarce.  Every hour, every minute, every second is constrained by scarcity.  People do not have an infinite amount of time and since time is scarce, individuals must economize their time in ways that best serves their personal interests.  The problem with any democratic system is what is commonly perceived as its main benefit.  The dispersal of power means that no one person has any real say in the outcome of an election.  Rational people, people looking to economize their scarce resources, will employ their resources only if they think that doing so can accomplish a goal or task.  Taking the ten minutes to vote can certainly fall within the purview of rational people.  It is very little time and it fulfills that nationalistic desire that “good” citizens and brought up with.  However, they are much less likely to take the time to research every issue, every topic, and every political matter that their vote weighs in on.  After all, one vote among millions is statistically insignificant.  Because each individual has a scarce amount of time and an insignificant contribution to the democratic process, they don’t reap any benefits from spending the necessary time needed to become informed on the very issue they are voting on.  In other words, the rational individual in a democratic society is the individual who disregards politics altogether in order to spend his or her time on actions that can actually affect his or her life.  The result of rational ignorance is that bad laws and incompetent leaders infect the democratic system.

The second problem with democracy has to do with how individuals treat and perceive each other.  The one defining feature of every government is coercion.  Every government claims a monopoly on the production of law and how that law is to be enforced.  To clarify, coercion is the instrument through which the state establishes and maintains the laws that it produces.  This is no different in a democratic system of government.  Because of this defining feature, voters are attempting to enforce their political views on every person that falls within the territory of the state.  Interpersonal relationships are not affected by certain political views that individuals hold and vote on.  Certainly, you’d be hard pressed to find opposition to the outlawing of murder.  However, most political topics are little more than divisive opinions.  Topics such as the minimum wage, war policy, foreign policy, budgets, health care, and civil liberties are all issues with multiple sides.  Because coercion is the instrument by which political change is enacted, all democratically decided policies are enforced on everyone.  To elaborate, let’s look at the vitriol that Democrats and Republicans have for each other.  Each party vehemently opposes the other and rightfully so.  After all, each party is attempting to force the other party to live in their ideal government.  Another example is the typical Facebook feed, littered with conservatives trashing liberals and their positions, and liberals ridiculing conservatives and their positions.  There is this great myth that democracy is the process that brings together a diverse populace to collectively decide the laws of society.  In reality, it only polarizes and divides the society it pretends to bring together.  There already is a process for bringing diverse groups of people together.  It is called the market.  Even the bitterest enemies might be brought together through trade, each person only trying to make themselves better off.  The difference between the market and democracy is the decisions of democracy are coercively imposed whereas the decisions on the market occur through voluntary trade and agreement.

What are the implications of such conclusions?  If a society is to live under democratic rule, it must do so with extreme caution.  Every time an individual has a chance to vote to bring another good or service out of the market and into the power of the state, they must ask themselves if they are ready for that good or service to suffer the lower quality that will result from rational ignorance and if they are ready for the bitterness that will spring forth from the individuals opposed to the newly coerced measure.

– Will Shanahan, Contributing Editor, the Humane Condition

Check out Will’s blog at

The Civil Rights Acts and Individual Liberty

The succession of Civil Rights Acts through the 1960’s in the United States is often considered a watershed moment in American history. In general these Bills that became Law are seen as major victories for advocates of civil equality and most especially, black Americans. On the surface it is hard to view these events in any other way, and most often it is the correct view. There is a problem however, and one that may in fact aid in the understanding of the continuing problem of race relations in the twenty-first century.

There is a single distinction that can be made in regards to what the different Civil Rights Acts decreed. There were parts of these laws that eliminated segregation and discrimination in government sponsored or “public sector” establishments, and there were parts of these laws that violated the private property rights of others declaring it unlawful to discriminate or segregate one’s own private business. This is the problem.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s was a movement demanding civil equality, and equal protection under the law. These are the basic tenets of personal freedom as viewed through the classical liberal lens that the United States was supposedly founded upon. It must be made clear, to endorse the personal freedom of all men and women is not to endorse their ensuing behavior, only that the individual has the rights of person and property. If a society is to maintain freedom and equality, the rights of all private property owners must necessarily be respected, no matter how immoral one may feel about how the property is being used.

This unprecedented expansion of federal government authority over private businesses begs a question. What is the philosophical distinction between a private home and a private business? There is no such distinction that can legitimize a government claiming dominion over some, but not all private property. The mere fact that a business “accommodates” or “facilitates” the general public does not make it “public” property. This may be seen as proposing discrimination to some, but ought to be seen as defense of the smallest minority, the individual.

Another problem with specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the requirement of businesses of over one hundred employees not to discriminate in hiring and the impracticability of its enforcement. An agent of the federal government cannot possibly know or prove whether a business owner is truly employing racial prejudice in his hiring decisions. The federal government’s solution was eventually to mandate racial quotas for hiring. It is likely that over time, further collectivization of race as a profound and distinct grouping only served to further racial tension. Former Congressman Ron Paul said on the House floor, July 3, 2004

“…while I join the sponsors…in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife.”

Contrary to mainstream opinion, opposition to this aspect of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not conflate with a support of the pre-1960’s status quo. It is perfectly within the authority of the federal government provide recourse to individuals whose 14th amendment rights had been denied in regards to segregated public schools, as determined in another section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is also the responsibility of the federal government to require all polling stations to ensure every legally eligible citizen is able to vote, as determined by the Voting Rights Act of 1964.

The only aspects of the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s are those that infringe upon the right to private property. Again, contrary to mainstream opinion this principle of private property does not conflate to support of continued segregation and racism. It is important to recognize the real relationship between Culture and Law. If it is true that the progress in race relations that has been made since the 1960’s is not because of these aspects of the Civil Rights Acts but in spite of them, then we can say with certainty that nowhere in the United States could a “White’s Only” private business succeed financially. Our culture has evolved to abhor racism to such an extent that rational discussion about the Civil Rights Acts is often unattainable without being labeled a racist. The market of ideas would have put Jim Crow segregation out of business decades ago if not propped up by Supreme Court decisions and other legislative infringements on the rights of the individual. It is certainly possible that this evolution would have occurred with less racial tension than what was created by the infringements of individual liberties that was part of the Civil Rights Acts.

Legislation must be understood for what it is, violence. All legislation, whether written and signed by a majority of the ‘citizens’ of a democracy or the whims of a monarch, is backed up by the threat of imprisonment, and in many cases the implied threat of death. We should attempt to learn from the successes that occurred organically and culturally, those of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Perhaps his doctrine of nonviolence can be applied here to the federal government. One of the five main pillars of Dr. King’s doctrine on non-violence included “Active resistance to the forces of evil, but not the individual actors”. Dr. King believed that racism was “a plague suffered by all races”. Clearly the aspects of the Civil Rights Acts in question here are examples of active resistance to the individual actors. Brown v. Board of Education proved that it is not possible to change Culture via the Law. Ten years after the Brown ruling, only 9.2 percent of black students in the South were enrolled in segregated schools.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.     The Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s accomplished several admirable feats. In regards to the public sphere the federal government had every responsibility to guarantee equal protection under the law, and civil rights. Its violations of individual liberties have had long lasting negative effects. It is easy to understand why it is costly and often counterproductive to fight violence with violence, but what many fail to grasp is the inherent violence in legislation. The federal government has tried, again and again, to legislate morality. It does not work. Alcohol prohibition was a dismal failure as the “War on Some Drugs” continues to be. If the federal government had no hand in marriage, there would be no need for marriage equality laws. The rights of individual self-ownership and private property are ultimately what gives every individual the potential to improve his or her lot in life. These rights ought to be protected, not infringed upon by the Law. Cultural evolution is the non-violent alternative to violent, or political revolution. It is also the more effective alternative.

 – Adam Alcorn, @AdamBlacksburg

Founder, Editor at the Humane Condition