If People of Color Had the Power, Would Whites Be Second-Class Citizens?

Is the difference between a villain and their victim truly rooted in morality, or does it all come down to power? When we examine immoral acts, it’s easy to place blame on the perpetrator, but what if the tables were turned? Could the victim, if given the same power, act in the same manner as the villain? It’s a profound question that pushes us to reconsider the nature of morality and how it intersects with power dynamics.

At its core, morality seems intertwined with power. The oppressed may not be inherently more virtuous; they simply lack the ability to act otherwise. “With great power comes great responsibility,” as Spiderman’s Uncle Ben famously said. But is responsibility only about what you do with power? Or does power itself determine the path to moral or immoral behavior?

Imagine two individuals—one holds immense power, the other has none. Is the powerful one inherently more immoral, or is their potential for harm magnified by their capacity to act? When we think about figures like dictators or corporate magnates, they often become the faces of evil in society. But their misdeeds may not be due to a moral flaw greater than any average person; they simply have the tools to execute their will more effectively.

Consider the example of a bully and their victim. If we assume the victim never fights back, it may be tempting to assume they’re morally superior. However, if the victim were given the same power as the bully, could they not become the bully themselves? Power—or the lack of it—can place someone in a neutral moral position. They aren’t saints for enduring oppression; they simply lack the means to retaliate.

Looking at human history, the relationship between power and morality becomes even more evident. When societies first began to develop, power often lay with the physically stronger members, usually men. This led to the patriarchy, where men dominated because physical strength granted them the upper hand. But what if women had the same physical power? Would history have seen a matriarchy that mirrored the oppression men imposed on women?

The patterns of power repeat throughout history. In *Guns, Germs, and Steel*, Jared Diamond explains how geographical advantages played a critical role in determining which societies would dominate others. Europeans, for instance, had access to resources like high-calorie grains and large animals, which allowed them to develop faster than other regions. But had Native Americans enjoyed the same geographical fortune, would they have committed the same atrocities against Europeans? The outcome might not have been much different because power, not morality, dictates action.

The modern world offers another perfect example of how power shapes morality. In *The Accidental Superpower*, Peter Zeihan explores how the United States came to dominate the global stage. With abundant natural resources, advantageous geography, and energy independence, the U.S. was poised to become a global power. Many criticize the U.S. for its foreign interventions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, but would any other nation have acted differently given the same level of power?

If another country, democratic or not, were to hold the reins of global influence, they too might have made similar choices. The difference isn’t a matter of moral character—it’s about who holds the power. History, geography, and circumstance gave the U.S. a unique position, and with that power comes the potential for both good and ill.

Power doesn’t corrupt people; it amplifies their morality. When someone is in a position to effect change, their moral compass is magnified. This is why we often judge those in power more harshly—because their actions have a greater impact on the world.

If we consider the powerful and the powerless, it’s not necessarily that the powerless are more moral. They simply don’t have the means to commit great acts of harm. They live in a state of enforced moral neutrality. But when they gain power, they too face the choice between becoming a hero or a villain. Morality becomes more complex as power grows, and the stakes are higher.

With power comes responsibility, and this applies to individuals and nations alike. Those in power must be held accountable for their actions, not because they are inherently worse than others, but because their influence makes their actions more consequential. It’s crucial to understand that power alone doesn’t make someone evil, but it does place upon them a heavier burden of moral responsibility.

Societies must acknowledge that individuals or nations with great power must be judged differently. Their actions carry weight, and they must act with the awareness that their choices shape the lives of many. Power isn’t about superiority; it’s about responsibility. We can criticize those in power for their wrongdoings, but we must also recognize that with greater power comes a greater expectation for moral behavior.

In the end, morality is not an inherent trait but a function of power. Those with power are given the ability to do both great good and immense harm. And when we view morality through this lens, we can understand that it’s not about whether someone is a victim or a villain—it’s about how power shifts the moral playing field.

Victimhood doesn’t automatically imply moral superiority, just as holding power doesn’t make someone inherently immoral. What matters is how individuals or nations wield their power, and with that power comes a responsibility that cannot be ignored.