Racism
All right, well, this started off as a response to a couple of comments left about my "Commandante" entry, but it got really long, so I thought I might as well publish it.
Read "Commandante" and the comments first, so that the beginning makes sense.
***
The definition from dictionary.com is a tad circular, because it doesn't explain what the concept of "race" is.
There's a difference in race and ethnicity, though in Canada the terms are used somewhat interchangeably. The idea of race denotes that humans of different colour and origin are fundamentally different - that there are behaviours people possess because of their physical and genetic features. So, it assumes that people of different ethnic origin are predisposed to certain behaviours and intelligences, nomatter what social or cultural context they are brought up in.
The belief that race exists as a divider of people would dictate, for example, that white people are better at hockey, or that asian people are better at math, or to use a negative example, that black people are inherently violent. All these are "proven" by the fact that there are mostly white people in hockey, that there's a high percentage of students of asian origin in math programs at universities, and that violence is a problem in many "black" neighbourhoods in North America. These are all the result of social conditions more than anything: hockey is a sport played in northern countries where mostly white people live, asian culture often puts a strong emphasis on academic excellence in the fields of math and science, and violence is a result of poverty and marginalization that black communities are still feeling from racist city planning and housing regulations of the past century.
The idea that race and racism are based on "fact" is continually being challenged in a globalizing world. Migration of people and the lifting of economic and social barriers means that people of different ethnicities are growing up in different social and cultural environments than their ancestors, and thus do not possess the same cultural ideologies and lifestyles. Therefore, people of the same ethnicity do not always end up as the same "type" of people. So clearly their physical or genetic backgrounds have nothing to do with their personality or intelligence - those depend on upbringing within a particular social environment.
It's important to realize this in Canada - a country with a policy and image that encourages multiculturalism - because if predetermined notions about people based on their ethnicity are left to propagate, then tensions between different cultures are bound to escalate. Accounting for and allowing different cultural practices is one thing, but categorizing people based on ethnic descendence is quite another - and a destructive one at that.
***
Apparently I'm feeling academic these days.
Read "Commandante" and the comments first, so that the beginning makes sense.
***
The definition from dictionary.com is a tad circular, because it doesn't explain what the concept of "race" is.
There's a difference in race and ethnicity, though in Canada the terms are used somewhat interchangeably. The idea of race denotes that humans of different colour and origin are fundamentally different - that there are behaviours people possess because of their physical and genetic features. So, it assumes that people of different ethnic origin are predisposed to certain behaviours and intelligences, nomatter what social or cultural context they are brought up in.
The belief that race exists as a divider of people would dictate, for example, that white people are better at hockey, or that asian people are better at math, or to use a negative example, that black people are inherently violent. All these are "proven" by the fact that there are mostly white people in hockey, that there's a high percentage of students of asian origin in math programs at universities, and that violence is a problem in many "black" neighbourhoods in North America. These are all the result of social conditions more than anything: hockey is a sport played in northern countries where mostly white people live, asian culture often puts a strong emphasis on academic excellence in the fields of math and science, and violence is a result of poverty and marginalization that black communities are still feeling from racist city planning and housing regulations of the past century.
The idea that race and racism are based on "fact" is continually being challenged in a globalizing world. Migration of people and the lifting of economic and social barriers means that people of different ethnicities are growing up in different social and cultural environments than their ancestors, and thus do not possess the same cultural ideologies and lifestyles. Therefore, people of the same ethnicity do not always end up as the same "type" of people. So clearly their physical or genetic backgrounds have nothing to do with their personality or intelligence - those depend on upbringing within a particular social environment.
It's important to realize this in Canada - a country with a policy and image that encourages multiculturalism - because if predetermined notions about people based on their ethnicity are left to propagate, then tensions between different cultures are bound to escalate. Accounting for and allowing different cultural practices is one thing, but categorizing people based on ethnic descendence is quite another - and a destructive one at that.
***
Apparently I'm feeling academic these days.
posted by Emily at 2:26 a.m.
6 Comments:
emmy the academic. maybe you should wear my glasses so you can walk around and look studious. :P
Anyways, that article in the Globe that was about what that fish had in common with humans was, in fact, about race.
Scientists at the Universities of Toronto and Pennsylvania have discovered that the so called 'Golden Gene' that makes the skin of zebra fish turn a golden colour is the same one that helped to whiten the skin of the first Europeans.
Why is that, you ask? Well, scientists have apparently theorized for a long time that the evolution of skin pigmentation had to do with the climates found in different regions. The tropical climates in Africa called for darker skin to protect the body against harmful ultraviolet rays. In Europe, where there is less sunlight, darker skin interfered with the body's ability to absord enough ultraviolet light to synthesize Vitamin D. A lighter complexion was, therefore, more advantageous.
What does this all mean? To me it appears as though science is finally catching up to the prevailing idea behind race. One of the main reasons for the prevalence of the theory that there are fundamental genetic differences between people with different skin colour is that the science has never truly been there to fully refute it. We may have been raised to believe that we are all the same, but there had to be that 'what if' lurking somewhere in the back of our brains. Not to say that this is a precursor to racist ideology, but merely an acknowledgment that maybe there really are fundamental genetic differences between people with different skin colour.
Now, I'm not so naive as to believe that this revelation will eliminate racism. In fact, it probably won't resonate much at all outside of academic circles - These things do take some time... (what do you mean we come from monkeys?). But as long as the science behind human genetics continues to progress, it will be difficult for future generations to take much credence in antiquated racial theories. Maybe we'll even be able to finally eliminate 'race' from our vocabulary. That would be a start.
p.s. you so smart emmy :D
The floodgates of knowledge have opened! Academia invades! The free flow of information will conquer ignorance! We're gonna spam this comment section to hell and there's nothing you can do about it!
So get used to it, Emily ;P
Here're my two cents worth. No points, just questions.
In a diverse and multicural country or city, does anyone believe that the public or corporate sector of that particular region should also follow the native culture? To those who say that never happens, I can give a few examples:
-USA: recent controversy about government and corporate reference to a Christmas / Holiday Tree. The fact that the White House celebrates it at all is another example.
-Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.: Faith and belief in Islam. Some Islamic countries even subscribe to Shariah law, if I'm not mistaken.
-China: Until about fifteen years ago, government officials still wore traditional navy-cut suits. Spitoons were part of the decor in government offices, and government furniture was much more Chinese than those of most Chinese families of the day.
-UK: Has a queen. And Knighting. Yes, I realize the Queen doesn't rule the country, but her face IS on the currency. Ours too.
Whether your answer is yes or no, then what about Canada? What culture should or should it not follow?
About "Maybe we'll even be able to finally eliminate 'race' from our vocabulary. That would be a start." I don't understand that comment. That implies the word "race" has a negative conotation and should be avoided. Personally I beleive the very opposite: race, culture, and ethnicity are something to be celebrated, in my humble opinion. Those are the most inate links one has with their history (if you know what your race that is, for a mutt like me, all I know is that I'm white.. some quebec farmer mixed with some italian, and a tad of blackhawk indian..)
But, about race being a vague indicator of genetic history, it might be interesting to note that race is only a short term history. I read somewhere (probably in a Brief History of Nearly Everything) that race is a trait that only lasts for only 20 generations.
I understand that to mean that it is possible, in a direct line, my aceestors in the 1500s could have been really black (this of course negates the obvious inter-mating with other races, etc.. But say a colony containing my parents was moved somewhere, and placed in isolation for 20 generations..) Therefore meaning that, race alone can't really mean that much about a person in terms of intelligence, ability, etc.. (In short: Race can not be used to indicate genetic superiority)
But, I think, and have always thought, people put way too much weight in race. Everyone is unique: skin colour, distinct facial attributes, are nothing more than variables in a vastly complicated combination of unique traits that make up a person. And I've never been able to understand pure racism (I know it exists, it just doesn't make sense to how someone would discriminate against one person based on skin colour, when a person's abilities are a much more practical and economical method of descrimination. (I wouldn't hire a midget as a basketball player, or a 6 year old balerena as a fire fighter))
"In a diverse and multicural country or city, does anyone believe that the public or corporate sector of that particular region should also follow the native culture? To those who say that never happens, I can give a few examples:"
Depends, I feel it's wrong to have the word "God" in our constitution, because it goes against the seperation of church and state (I don't know about Canada, but that seperation is a founding principle of the US, and they have God in a lot of things, even the swearing in of a president.)
Having "God" laced through our official documents descriminates against non-Christians in our nation. (Some guy tried to remove the references a few years back, and was laughed out of Parliament :( ) And I don't have any numbers, but I beleive there are a few non-christian citizens, here and in the states.
About Christmas trees and such. I'm not Christian, but I see no problem with the White House, or the Prime Minister's house (somewhere on susex) having an xmas tree up. After all, to the best of my knowledge, Paul Martin, and Bush are Christian, they should be able to celebrate xmas in their homes as much as they want. If they were Moulism, I'd expect them to celebrate Ramadon.. Etc.
About decorating Parliament.. It's a touchy issue, but they way I see it, a big xmas tree in New York, stuff on Parliament, doens't hurt anyone. I suppose it is a bit descriminatory that we don't officially celebrate the events of every citizen's culture if we celebrate Christmas.. But obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere.
It makes sense for Christmas stuff on Parliament because a great number of Canadian's celebrate the consumer orgy that is Christmas.
Celebrating Christmas does not discriminate against any other religious celebration. And because this country was founded upon christian ideals with many of our residents BEING christian, those coming to this country should appreciate that this is ostensibly an important time of year.
Now. Whether or not it is, is a totally different matter.
If the situation was reversed and somehow I ended up in India for Diwali, I would not feel discriminated against because I don't observe it. But then again, Hindu gods aren't vengeful ones and won't destroy all infidels and non-believers in a fiery rain of death.
The majority should not appologize for making a huge deal out of their religious holidays and feel bad for not celebrating every other holiday under the sun. So long as everyone has the RIGHT to celebrate what they want, when they want.
Now as for seperating church and state. Referring to God is so minute and not even religion-specific that it doesn't even matter. People who try to remove the word god from the consititution get laughed out of court because they are tools, and they give people who actually want to uphold that seperation a bad name. You want to be concerned about something? Be concerned about the US government funding faith-based outreach programs, worry about the growing influence the religious right is having on politicians and their policies (including supreme court nominees) be worried about ACTUAL problems, not whether God comes up in the consitituion. Who cares?
J.
Race? You wanna try to argue race with me? Dispite what you all may think about humans being equal or what not its not true. Race is the result of evolution. Whites have evolved to adapt to colder climates. While blacks are better adapted for warmer climated. Asians to handle the sun reflecting off the water.
Now consider this. Whites pretty much ruled the world at one point. Why is this? Why didn't other cultures/races evolve to combat this rising race? So clearly not all races are equal.
Maybe when you blend all the races into a melting pot as to level the playing field people will become equals. But as history has shown when one race is by itself such as the white race it become more advanced. Now other races may excel in their own fields of whatever but clearly history has shown the white race as the dominant race.
Now things have taken a turn for whites. Whites are now the target of oppression. Things such as being politically correct and affirmative action are eating away at what the white race has accomplished over hundreds of years. Think about that. White males are no longer considered equal. Now black males have the advantage when applying for jobs and schools for nothing more then that fact that they are black. This politically correct culture has targeted white males. White males are losing out on jobs and oppertunities just because they are born white. Where is the justice in that?
So next time someone says all races are equal i hope you remember this. remember that evolution has shown that whites are the smarter dominant race.
thats all i have to say about this.
-Anonymous
Post a Comment
<< Home