I am always quite surprised to find just how many otherwise sensible people fall for the fallacy of race. Most "white supremacy" groups define themselves as being of the "white race" without ever realizing just how misguided their very identity could be.
If a person identifies as "black", what does that mean? Most people would define "black" as being of primarily African descent. Ok, that's fine, but think about it for a moment. If you go to Africa and ask somebody, "Are you an African?" most of them would give you a funny look at best. They would more likely identify with their tribe and/or clan or, in the more modernized areas, their region or country. That goes similarly for "white". A white person is generally thought of as being of primarily European descent. But where in Europe? Europe isn't the biggest continent, but it's still a pretty broad category. I, for example, am mostly of German descent. Even in Germany, however, you can find differentiations between 'High' and 'Low' German, North and South Germany, etc. Most "white" Europeans find the American obsession with race to be somewhat ridiculous for this reason.
Another problem with the racial theory is that there's no such thing as a "pure-bred" anything. Nobody is 100% white, let alone 100% German or Italian; nobody is 100% black, or Mandarin, or anything else. If you go back even a few generations, the chances are quite high that you'll find somebody outside of your own racial identification in your family. The farther back you go, the greater the chances until you get to the point where all "races" return to an undifferentiated small mass of early humanity. A friend of mine with a primarily Cicelian family likes to joke about his Moorish ancestors.
What is particularly interesting is that the idea of race is pretty recent, dating from only the 19th century. Even then it was used to justify all manner of unethical behavior. (See From Dawn to Decadence and Race: A Study in Superstition both by Jacques Barzun for more.)
There are primarily two forms of racial superstition: racism and racialism. Racism is the most commonly known, wherein an individual or subculture feels themselves to be in some way superior to those of other races. Racialism, on the other hand, is the source of 'racial separatism'. In racialism, those of differing racial origins are generally considered to be 'equal but different'. A black athlete, for example, may be thought to have more fast-twitch muscle fibers which is why he can sprint faster than a white athlete. Similarly, Jews are thought to be genetically predisposed to dealing well with money matters. The list goes on.
Racialism has one addition argument against it: there is simply no evidence for it. While it is true that some people from some areas of the world are more genetically predisposed to certain traits, diseases, and so forth, they are still all equally human. What's more, most of the traits thought to be 'racial' in origin are actually cultural and have little to no genetic foundation. As an example, Africans are very likely to be more athletic than middle-class American whites simply because their lifestyle necessitates it. Likewise, Chinese children tend to do well in school because the Chinese culture puts much greater emphasis on academic achievement than ours in the USA.
I'm sure that nothing I can say will convince racists and racialists to change their minds, but I need to get it out somewhere. Maybe some fence sitter who was raised in a racialist environment but who has been unable to fear and hate Latinos might stumble upon this blog entry and find that he has good reason for his doubts.
View the world through my eyes.
4 comments:
I was raised by a racist father, and although I have worked to free myself of the brainwashing I received, I wonder sometimes if I have completely succeeded. How can one ever be truly sure? I agree with you that it's ridiculous to think that one person is better than another based on a concept as flimsy as the amount of melanin in one's skin. Disclaimers aside, I would like to point out that there *are* some genetic differences between what are acknowledged as races, such as prevalence of diseases (e.g., Caucasians are more prone to cystic fibrosis; blacks to sicle-cell anemia; Ashkenazi Jews to Tay-Sachs; etc.). Would you say that that's more of a tribal differentiation, or is that a case for acknowledging the concept of race?
To me, that isn't a good case for the concept of race, unless by race you mean a grouping of genetic mutations intended to make survival easier in certain parts of the world. Dark skin, for example, is far better for people who live in hot, sunny areas and spend much of their time out of doors, such as Africans, desert Arabs, and the aboriginal peoples of Australia. As to diseases, some of them stem from just such evolutionary modifications, i.e. sicle-cell anemia. Sicle-cell, as ravaging as it can be, has been found to be helpful in desert and extremely sunny and hot climate people by keeping their blood cooler and aiding their cells in maintaining structure under extreme heat. Take them out of that sun and heat, and you face problems.
I think that race is a fine concept, as long as it's used historically and/or linguistically, in order to track the movements of certain languages and other cultural elements. When it is used in the present tense as a means of emphasizing stereotypes, it does little more than cause mutual abuse.
So how do we stop the mutual abuse? Do we simply refuse to acknowledge race as a concept anymore, until the color os one's skin is as unimportant as the color of one's underwear? Or is there an easy solution to getting people to understand that all are human beings, but we just have different backgrounds?
I couldn't possibly say; I'm no social engineer. All I can say is my personal attitude, which has taken some conscious cultivation on my part. I treat the concept of race as being important only to linguistic history and archaeology, in order to trace the travels of cultures, languages and gene pools. As far as it goes in today's world, I separate the ideas of "culture" and "skin color" quite sharply. Culture can be chosen or adopted with enough time and deep enough immersion. Skin color is of little importance to me. It's basically similar to hair or eye color; I may have my preferences as far as who I'm attracted to sexually, but it has no bearing in how I judge a person as a person.
Post a Comment