Race

Posted on Friday, February 12th, 2010 at 4:32 pm in

Talking about race is racist. There are no races, only stereotypes to be proven wrong. We should not be fighting for racial equality but for making the concept obsolete.

If an organization hand-picks its members based purely on their qualifications, and the races are not distributed according to the population’s demographics, this signifies something about society and not the organization. If this organization were to intentionally admit certain people to maintain an "equal opportunity" workforce, this just as racist.

Some people complain about certain fields being dominated by certain races when they are only accepting the qualifying candidates, which may have a tendency to be of one heritage or another. If a certain race is taking over the medical field it is likely because they are better doctors.

Something I have been wondering for awhile is how much of a person’s mind is determined by genetics, and how much by environment. If a kid from a "stupid" family were raised by "intelligent" parents, would they be smarter than they otherwise would have been? If so, the "degenerates" of our society were likely made so by society.

And also, if society were different so would the stereotypes. So the stereotype is more about the "mind" characteristic than about physical appearance. If Ruritanians tend to have bushy eyebrows, and we take away the concept of race, they are simply bushy-eyebrowed people.

People from different locations in the world have different religions, customs, food, etc, and they will also have a different appearance in general. So when we are opposed to a certain race, do we disagree with their culture or the fact that they have bushy eyebrows? The latter can only be changed with the regular application of a razor, but things such as religion and customs could open to debate of their justification.

Suppose that in addition to bushy eyebrows, Ruritanians also have a custom of slurping their soup. This causes a mess when they visit restaurants, which causes the restaurant to spend more money on cleaning when they serve Ruritanians (bear with my analogy). If Ruritanians are a minority, but still cause some loss in profits, the restaurant owner might want to prevent people from slurping their soup.

They could post a sign which says "No slurping", which would be similar to posting "no kosher food served here," but if Ruritanians speak little English this may not work. So suppose, for the sake of the example, that they decide to prevent Ruritanians from dining there, because the majority of them slurp their soup. A convenient way to do this is by turning away bushy-eyebrowed people.

But then the problem arises, that this solution is pretty far removed from the original goal. Not all bushy-eyebrowed people are Ruritanian, not all Ruritanians slurp their soup, and there are non-Ruritanian soup-slurpers. The addition of the rule is an open invitation to a false stereotype.

The reason I bring this up is because the stereotypes still exist. The thing about them is that they are not always pure fantasy, they can actually be said of many of those they apply to. Most of this, I think, is due to recursion: the existence of a stereotype affects its constituents to resemble it. I bring this up because we have been covering the 20th century in history class, and the treatment of black people in this time period involves some of the most egotistical shit I’ve ever heard.

The only time the color of someone’s skin should be relevant is if you were doing an experiment on the reflective properties of human flesh. That someone’s skin might absorb more frequencies of light is an absurd reason to treat them differently. If this were the only thing at work, one would think the civil rights movement would have made quicker progress.

No, the claim made is that there is a difference in the mind, that colored people are somehow lesser. Now, they did not have our scientific knowledge at the time, but the real difference between the two is a gnat’s eyelash in the vast genetic code. And even if there were any significant difference, what is this "superiority" thing anyways?

You might also be interested in

Add your comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Top