I'm postponing a post on Folk style music to talk about a different issue that has come up.
An article in the Chronical of Higher Education is claiming that the emergence of biracial or multi-racial personalities in the public eye does not serve to battle racism in the US.
Oh gosh.
I recently wrote about the tendency to generalize, which causes both confusion --when done carelessly-- and improved understanding, when undertaken appropriately. Racism is part of a collection of thinking patterns that allow people of modest intellectual means to cope with an evolving society.
Any sort of prejudice --including racial prejudice-- is a thinking tool. It is a collection of stored thought-patterns that spring into play when one does not have the time or the inclination to deal with a particular situation from scratch.
For instance, a person waiting for a bus sees someone approaching, with a determined look in his or her eye. Two reactions are possible.
Reaction 1. Oh look; here's somebody coming to talk. I wonder whether I should make eye contact, and possibly miss the bus from being distracted, or should I engage the person long enough to be of help?
Reaction 2. Oh look; here's somebody coming to talk. Hmm. From the clothes they're wearing, it looks like someone foreign, and they're probably going to talk funny. And smell of garlic. They're probably going to ask for money, or a bus token ...
Though, in the best of all possible worlds, we ought to weigh the demands of civility and hospitability against the possible risk of missing the bus, depending on how crucial it is to catch the bus, we could choose Reaction 2, because it is the more efficient course of action.
Consider a different example, this one involving bigger risks. You're in a city park, and an animal is approaching. It is hairy, and big.
Reaction 1. It looks big and hairy, and most big hairy things that I know are dangerous. But it seems to have a smile on its face, and it's tail is wagging. It looks like a wolf, but looks friendly ... maybe I should just smile back, and call 911 on the phone, or I could just run like hell ...
Reaction 2. Oh god, it's a wild animal, and it's got teeth. I'm not going to make eye contact, I'm just going to walk away slowly, until I'm out of its sight.
In this case, we would readily admit that the prejudiced Reaction 2 could save your life. So at least some of the time, prejudiced behavior could be useful. But beware.
Racism can be simply prejudiced behavior. I've heard the following sorts of prejudices: * The kid who won the competition is probably foreign; foreign parents are always pushing their kids. * The people next door are unemployed. They're probably drug addicts. * The fourth grade teacher is gay. He probably fondles the boys.
Despite the statistical success of people who base most of their actions on prejudice, many of us realize that the social changes that have been for the better have been accomplished by people systematically choosing to ignore prejudices, and think each action through. Thinking through choices carefully is more work, but in return, one gets a better social and cultural environment.
There is another kind of racism, which comes from having to share resources. There's just so much available; why should they get such a large proportion of it? This is true of migrant labor in the US, and land use in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, in Native American Reservations, the institution of gambling in states which traditionally did not allow it, and even in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
There is nothing appealing in this attitude, except that the culprits often hide behind the claim that they're doing it for their families and generations yet unborn.
Finally, of course, there is a worse kind of racism yet --or some kind of ism, anyway-- namely the belief that certain kinds of people are less than human, need less, should be allowed less, and should be watched carefully, and not be allowed to have too numerous offspring.
The number of people who engage in all these sorts of lazy thinking are on the rise, but their proportion is dwindling, compared to the size of the overall population. I may have done more harm than good in outing this sort of behavior as simply mental laziness, but it serves to put the problem of race in perspective.
Futurists of fifty years ago predicted that the first white nation to have a black elected head of state would probably be the USA. They predicted that by the end of this century, there would be few individuals of greater than 70% or less than 30% African descent living in the USA; in other words, that the caucasian and the african sectors of the population would mix.
This, of course, is bad news to those whose occupations depend on race. Their livelihood is unlikely to be threatened in the short run: certain sociologists, certain political scientists, leaders of minority groups, professional chauvinists. But, in the long run, it doesn't matter whether a particular election brings multi-racial individuals to the fore, or whether it doesn't. This will all pass, and multi-racial people will be the majority, if they are not so now. In good times, we will not need to invoke race in order to gain a mean advantage over our fellow human beings. In bad times, we will recognize that people of all heritages can help us, and we must learn not to be too proud to take help where we can.
Of course, future generations, neither black nor white, but a sort of uniform grey, may miss the wonderful kaleidoscope of ethnic events and artifacts that we find all around us, the sheer color of racial diversity, using 'color' in the metaphorical sense. But there are ways to preserve the cultural diversity of these times, without prejudicial baggage. Perhaps we can learn to sing the folk music of all our nations (and sing it properly, without transforming it into gibberish, as the Scouts have done, no matter how well-meaningly).
Archimedes
No comments:
Post a Comment