Showing posts with label United States Racial Relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States Racial Relations. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2010
Post No. 146e: Article of Interest on Glenn Beck
The following article by Christopher Hitchens, concerning the "Glenn Beck movement," appeared today in Slate.
We will not make any introductory comments. We await your comments.
White Fright
Glenn Beck's rally was large, vague, moist, and undirected - the Waterworld of white self-pity.
(c) 2010 Slate
One crucial element of the American subconscious is about to become salient and explicit and highly volatile. It is the realization that white America is within thinkable distance of the moment when it will no longer be the majority.
To view the remainder of the article, click here.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Post No. 68: Prejudice as Survival Instinct
[As many of you are aware, we invite our readers to become Guest Authors and submit articles to us for posting on our blog. The guidelines for the submitted articles are contained in our Post No. 34. (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/08/post-no-34-opportunity-to-serve-as.html.) Leading up to the election of Sen. Obama, there was much discussion in our country about the effect of race, and where we as a nation have come in terms of dealing with that issue. The following article has been submitted by one of our regular readers on the subject. Enjoy.]
© 2008, D. W. Haire
Every so often, I am reminded of something my Mother said to me. It was odd because it was "out of the blue," and had nothing to do with anything going on around us, or the conversation we were having. These are her words as well as I can recall them:
"I don't think I'm prejudiced but, if I am walking down the street and a black man approaches, I get very nervous and afraid."
Years later, my Father (a couple of years before he passed away) was relating a story that seemed important to him. We had been talking about various things and he was remembering a period when he was frustrated at work. There was something about a meeting and it may have been when he was leaving the company to start his own business (a small bike shop). The details are unclear, but I remember his words, and the emotion behind them, when he told me what he said to his supervisor.
"I never liked your smiling Jewish face."
My father never uttered a word of prejudice regarding anyone or any group in my presence in all the years prior to that. It was another "out of the blue" remark that sticks in my mind.
The following is not scientific. It does not have extensive research to support it, nor does it provide any references. It is strictly opinion, and my own opinion at that. You can disagree or not, as you see fit.
It will likely remain my opinion regardless of your argument unless you can show me a scientific, well researched, paper that refutes it. Even then, I will be the judge of that proof. This is not something I have just popped up with. It is opinion which is based upon what logic, knowledge, and observations I have gathered over the years. In short, it works for me. Let's start with my hypothesis and work from there.
I believe that hate and fear of others began with early man as a matter of survival. That is, prejudice and bigotry were survival techniques that actually worked to ensure the survival of individuals and of tribes. I am not condoning bigotry or prejudice, but rather I am taking an objective view, and positing a reason for their existence and persistence throughout the history of our species.
Early humans were hunter-gatherers. They banded together initially in family units and quickly into tribes or clans. It was necessary to do this in order to insure survival. It was easier for men to hunt in groups. More berries, grains, and wood (for fuel) can be gathered by a group than an individual. A family might survive on its own, but its chances are increased when it becomes part of a group. So tribes and clans are natural extensions of family and increase the odds of survival.
The first clans, as the name implies, came from family. But inbreeding would quickly destroy the group within a few generations. It is necessary to expand a gene pool. Therein lays the first dilemma - who to bring into the clan and where to find them.
To answer the question of where to find new blood, we turn to the prevailing lifestyle - hunting and gathering. For all practical purposes, men hunted and women (and children, often) gathered. It made sense. It worked. Clans migrated, as would tribes, following the herd animals they hunted. They would have to run into other clans from time to time. These clans were rivals for the food resources; game and vegetation and water. It is likely they would skirmish from time to time. The result would be one clan would be run off or wiped out.
Only they wouldn't be wiped out, would they? The women were likely to be spared because women are a resource. They provide an expanded gene pool that is non-threatening, add to a work force, and provide comfort, pleasure, and children. And they are compliant. They can be tamed (contrary to movie and novels).
Men are not resources, generally speaking. They are competition. They resist domestication. In a primitive society, the basic ingredients of power are strength and boldness. It is, therefore, more likely that women would be saved than men when a clash between clans occurs. It was not uncommon, for thousands of years, for the winning side to murder all the males, including male children, and take the women and female children.
From close breeding and a shallow gene pool, the tribe takes on common characteristics. Also, people really don't follow the "opposites attract" maxim for the most part. They are attracted to those who most look like themselves. Put another way, they are their own standard of beauty. Since the tribe has similar physical characteristics, outsiders would seem to them as "unalike."
It continues to today. I am reminded of an exchange in the O.J. Simpson trial where Judge Ito becomes unhappy when he is likened to a forensic investigator who is Chinese. To Judge Ito, the difference in physical characteristics between Japanese and Chinese was obvious, not so to the prosecutor who made the mistake. Differences may be subtle between Hutu and Tutsi but each is readily capable of recognizing the other.
In order to survive, primitive man needed to quickly determine friend or foe. And the biological answer was the precursor to prejudice. If you look like me and mine, you are my "Friend", if you do not, you are the "Enemy." Bigotry and racism also play a role in that they offer support for the belief of success in battling the enemy. If you perceive those that do not look like you as inferior, weaker, and/or less intelligent, then you feel you have an advantage and are more willing to fight.
I have heard many people express the idea that children are born without prejudice, that they learn this from their parents. I disagree. I think we are all born with it in our genetic makeup. Our parents and our peers simply teach us to articulate it, express it, and, all too often, to embrace it.
The question is, can we overcome this and rid humanity of the effects of prejudice and bigotry? Can we get people to expand their instinctual perception of their "tribe" to include all people of the planet? I think we must. Otherwise, that part of our survival instinct will eventually lead to our extinction. I know that I have learned to suppress my own prejudice, which is all I think is needed. I believe that when we understand why we think a certain way, we can control it.
© 2008, by D.W. Haire
© 2008, D. W. Haire
Every so often, I am reminded of something my Mother said to me. It was odd because it was "out of the blue," and had nothing to do with anything going on around us, or the conversation we were having. These are her words as well as I can recall them:
"I don't think I'm prejudiced but, if I am walking down the street and a black man approaches, I get very nervous and afraid."
Years later, my Father (a couple of years before he passed away) was relating a story that seemed important to him. We had been talking about various things and he was remembering a period when he was frustrated at work. There was something about a meeting and it may have been when he was leaving the company to start his own business (a small bike shop). The details are unclear, but I remember his words, and the emotion behind them, when he told me what he said to his supervisor.
"I never liked your smiling Jewish face."
My father never uttered a word of prejudice regarding anyone or any group in my presence in all the years prior to that. It was another "out of the blue" remark that sticks in my mind.
The following is not scientific. It does not have extensive research to support it, nor does it provide any references. It is strictly opinion, and my own opinion at that. You can disagree or not, as you see fit.
It will likely remain my opinion regardless of your argument unless you can show me a scientific, well researched, paper that refutes it. Even then, I will be the judge of that proof. This is not something I have just popped up with. It is opinion which is based upon what logic, knowledge, and observations I have gathered over the years. In short, it works for me. Let's start with my hypothesis and work from there.
I believe that hate and fear of others began with early man as a matter of survival. That is, prejudice and bigotry were survival techniques that actually worked to ensure the survival of individuals and of tribes. I am not condoning bigotry or prejudice, but rather I am taking an objective view, and positing a reason for their existence and persistence throughout the history of our species.
Early humans were hunter-gatherers. They banded together initially in family units and quickly into tribes or clans. It was necessary to do this in order to insure survival. It was easier for men to hunt in groups. More berries, grains, and wood (for fuel) can be gathered by a group than an individual. A family might survive on its own, but its chances are increased when it becomes part of a group. So tribes and clans are natural extensions of family and increase the odds of survival.
The first clans, as the name implies, came from family. But inbreeding would quickly destroy the group within a few generations. It is necessary to expand a gene pool. Therein lays the first dilemma - who to bring into the clan and where to find them.
To answer the question of where to find new blood, we turn to the prevailing lifestyle - hunting and gathering. For all practical purposes, men hunted and women (and children, often) gathered. It made sense. It worked. Clans migrated, as would tribes, following the herd animals they hunted. They would have to run into other clans from time to time. These clans were rivals for the food resources; game and vegetation and water. It is likely they would skirmish from time to time. The result would be one clan would be run off or wiped out.
Only they wouldn't be wiped out, would they? The women were likely to be spared because women are a resource. They provide an expanded gene pool that is non-threatening, add to a work force, and provide comfort, pleasure, and children. And they are compliant. They can be tamed (contrary to movie and novels).
Men are not resources, generally speaking. They are competition. They resist domestication. In a primitive society, the basic ingredients of power are strength and boldness. It is, therefore, more likely that women would be saved than men when a clash between clans occurs. It was not uncommon, for thousands of years, for the winning side to murder all the males, including male children, and take the women and female children.
From close breeding and a shallow gene pool, the tribe takes on common characteristics. Also, people really don't follow the "opposites attract" maxim for the most part. They are attracted to those who most look like themselves. Put another way, they are their own standard of beauty. Since the tribe has similar physical characteristics, outsiders would seem to them as "unalike."
It continues to today. I am reminded of an exchange in the O.J. Simpson trial where Judge Ito becomes unhappy when he is likened to a forensic investigator who is Chinese. To Judge Ito, the difference in physical characteristics between Japanese and Chinese was obvious, not so to the prosecutor who made the mistake. Differences may be subtle between Hutu and Tutsi but each is readily capable of recognizing the other.
In order to survive, primitive man needed to quickly determine friend or foe. And the biological answer was the precursor to prejudice. If you look like me and mine, you are my "Friend", if you do not, you are the "Enemy." Bigotry and racism also play a role in that they offer support for the belief of success in battling the enemy. If you perceive those that do not look like you as inferior, weaker, and/or less intelligent, then you feel you have an advantage and are more willing to fight.
I have heard many people express the idea that children are born without prejudice, that they learn this from their parents. I disagree. I think we are all born with it in our genetic makeup. Our parents and our peers simply teach us to articulate it, express it, and, all too often, to embrace it.
The question is, can we overcome this and rid humanity of the effects of prejudice and bigotry? Can we get people to expand their instinctual perception of their "tribe" to include all people of the planet? I think we must. Otherwise, that part of our survival instinct will eventually lead to our extinction. I know that I have learned to suppress my own prejudice, which is all I think is needed. I believe that when we understand why we think a certain way, we can control it.
© 2008, by D.W. Haire
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Post No. 61: Further Thoughts about the Problems Associated with an Obama Victory
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thanks Issac and Caleb for placing comments on our blog, in response to our earlier Post No. 60, “Why I am Concerned that Obama Might Win” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-60-why-i-am-concerned-that.html). You both essentially are of the opinion that the candidate with the best credentials, regardless of gender or race, should be selected. I have chosen to respond to the two of you in the form of a new post.
I agree with you, in theory, that society should want the best person (from an objective perspective) for the job. However, that’s not the way societies do things. There are reasons why neither a woman, nor a black, has ever been elected as President of this country. The reasons go back hundreds of years. There is a substantial segment of the population that feels that no matter the woman or the black, or the Hispanic or Asian for that matter, who might be put forth to occupy that position, they are inherently unqualified and unacceptable.
If one believes that gender and racial attitudes have improved since the 1950s, then an argument can be made that the time for a woman or some other minority has arrived, and our society has evolved. On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that racial and gender attitudes have not really changed, then one can easily come to the conclusion that America is not ready to have a woman or minority President.
What have changed over time are the visibility of integration, and the comfort level of at least some people to disclose their true feelings. Integration was effectively forced on this nation, first by the Warren Supreme Court when the Congress did not see fit to do so, and later legislatively, but with an extreme amount of reluctance.
There were clearly many bigots during the 1950s, who did not have a problem identifying themselves as such. There were probably just as many folks who were not legitimate, honest bigots, but behaved as such due to peer pressure and socialization factors. (This is the group which I suspect is comfortable having blacks as friends and colleagues today.)
Not only were many merchants, schools, clubs, public accommodations, and other entities forced to accept folks into their world against their will, but later the whole concept of affirmative action further soured the soup. There has been a lot of whispering, and under the breath statements of discomfort, over the past 60 years.
I’m not sure whether racial attitudes can change, as dramatically as we profess, over such a short period of time. Make-up can be applied, and plastic surgery performed, but the basic pragmatic and functional reasons for racism have existed, somewhere on this earth, for thousands of years. (Just think about all of the ethnic cleansing that took place over the past 30 years internationally.)
We previously addressed racism in our Post No. 2, in April 2008, entitled, “Why Racism, Although Problematic, Serves a Pragmatic and Utilitarian Function” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-racism-although-problematic-serves.html)
I suspect that the expression of prejudicial attitudes and beliefs, and the comfort with which people feel to express them, is significantly dependent on the current economic status of the group affected. I submit that there are transient changes in generational attitudes depending on the economic status of the nation. It is unnecessary, and serves no useful function, to disclose one’s innermost prejudices, if one is doing fairly well. However, as soon as one, or the group of which the person is a member, feels that his interests are being adversely affected, and identifies, rightly or wrongly, another group as a causative factor, then civility and the exercise of self-restraint go right out the window. That we have folks at McCain / Palin rallies calling for Obama’s death should surprise no one during these economic times.
Now, getting back to the performance issue. Just for sake of argument, let’s assume that we could label the state of economic affairs in our country as poor, moderate, or good. If a substantial segment of the electorate feels that women and minorities are incapable of running the country and serving competently, and by whatever combination of forces, the country ended up with a woman or black president, I would just hope that individual would preside during a moderate or good economic period. Then at least the person would have a chance to disabuse the doubters of the inappropriateness of the selection, and the inherent inferiority of that individual’s group.
But when we thrust the first of any group into a situation which many deem perilous, he’ll either be viewed as a hero, should things turn around quickly, or an abysmal failure, should economic conditions continue to deteriorate.
I simply do not think that things are going to turn around sufficiently economically within the next 2 – 3 years, to give Obama a chance to even appear competent. I also believe that no one person, under our system of government, can quickly overcome, as George Will calls it, “the inertia that is Washington.” Furthermore, do you really have reason to believe that a Democratic controlled Congress will do a better job than what has been done over the past 20 years?
This has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with the economy, and the apparent disinterest on the part of our elected federal officials, to place the interests of the nation, ahead of their personal interests.
I’m afraid that he will be a one term president, and we will not see another woman or minority elected for at least another 100 years thereafter.
We never allowed people to grow, respect, and value others on their own terms. We never allowed the concept of integration, fairness, and equal treatment to creep into the hearts and minds of people and evolve accordingly. Instead, we created awkward and artificial contrivances, and legal fictions, to achieve an admittedly lofty goal. However, we didn’t work on the hearts and minds of the core citizens of America. We just drove the bigots underground, and made unpopular the open expression of their views. (We also made employers financially responsible for discriminationatory acts of their employees which were developed years becoming arriving at that place of employment, as if an employer can really police the heart of an employee.) You couple those attitudes with some religious underpinnings, and nothing has really changed in the past 60 years. Their God supports their view of the world.
On the other hand, those closet liberals / potential race “minglers” who were afraid to disclose their true views during the 1950s, now feel free to do so.
The real question remains, deep down, have we really changed? If one believes that racism is primaily biologically and evolutionarily driven, and not a mere matter of choice, then it's going to take more than 60 years of artifical laws to change the DNA.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thanks Issac and Caleb for placing comments on our blog, in response to our earlier Post No. 60, “Why I am Concerned that Obama Might Win” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-60-why-i-am-concerned-that.html). You both essentially are of the opinion that the candidate with the best credentials, regardless of gender or race, should be selected. I have chosen to respond to the two of you in the form of a new post.
I agree with you, in theory, that society should want the best person (from an objective perspective) for the job. However, that’s not the way societies do things. There are reasons why neither a woman, nor a black, has ever been elected as President of this country. The reasons go back hundreds of years. There is a substantial segment of the population that feels that no matter the woman or the black, or the Hispanic or Asian for that matter, who might be put forth to occupy that position, they are inherently unqualified and unacceptable.
If one believes that gender and racial attitudes have improved since the 1950s, then an argument can be made that the time for a woman or some other minority has arrived, and our society has evolved. On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that racial and gender attitudes have not really changed, then one can easily come to the conclusion that America is not ready to have a woman or minority President.
What have changed over time are the visibility of integration, and the comfort level of at least some people to disclose their true feelings. Integration was effectively forced on this nation, first by the Warren Supreme Court when the Congress did not see fit to do so, and later legislatively, but with an extreme amount of reluctance.
There were clearly many bigots during the 1950s, who did not have a problem identifying themselves as such. There were probably just as many folks who were not legitimate, honest bigots, but behaved as such due to peer pressure and socialization factors. (This is the group which I suspect is comfortable having blacks as friends and colleagues today.)
Not only were many merchants, schools, clubs, public accommodations, and other entities forced to accept folks into their world against their will, but later the whole concept of affirmative action further soured the soup. There has been a lot of whispering, and under the breath statements of discomfort, over the past 60 years.
I’m not sure whether racial attitudes can change, as dramatically as we profess, over such a short period of time. Make-up can be applied, and plastic surgery performed, but the basic pragmatic and functional reasons for racism have existed, somewhere on this earth, for thousands of years. (Just think about all of the ethnic cleansing that took place over the past 30 years internationally.)
We previously addressed racism in our Post No. 2, in April 2008, entitled, “Why Racism, Although Problematic, Serves a Pragmatic and Utilitarian Function” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-racism-although-problematic-serves.html)
I suspect that the expression of prejudicial attitudes and beliefs, and the comfort with which people feel to express them, is significantly dependent on the current economic status of the group affected. I submit that there are transient changes in generational attitudes depending on the economic status of the nation. It is unnecessary, and serves no useful function, to disclose one’s innermost prejudices, if one is doing fairly well. However, as soon as one, or the group of which the person is a member, feels that his interests are being adversely affected, and identifies, rightly or wrongly, another group as a causative factor, then civility and the exercise of self-restraint go right out the window. That we have folks at McCain / Palin rallies calling for Obama’s death should surprise no one during these economic times.
Now, getting back to the performance issue. Just for sake of argument, let’s assume that we could label the state of economic affairs in our country as poor, moderate, or good. If a substantial segment of the electorate feels that women and minorities are incapable of running the country and serving competently, and by whatever combination of forces, the country ended up with a woman or black president, I would just hope that individual would preside during a moderate or good economic period. Then at least the person would have a chance to disabuse the doubters of the inappropriateness of the selection, and the inherent inferiority of that individual’s group.
But when we thrust the first of any group into a situation which many deem perilous, he’ll either be viewed as a hero, should things turn around quickly, or an abysmal failure, should economic conditions continue to deteriorate.
I simply do not think that things are going to turn around sufficiently economically within the next 2 – 3 years, to give Obama a chance to even appear competent. I also believe that no one person, under our system of government, can quickly overcome, as George Will calls it, “the inertia that is Washington.” Furthermore, do you really have reason to believe that a Democratic controlled Congress will do a better job than what has been done over the past 20 years?
This has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with the economy, and the apparent disinterest on the part of our elected federal officials, to place the interests of the nation, ahead of their personal interests.
I’m afraid that he will be a one term president, and we will not see another woman or minority elected for at least another 100 years thereafter.
We never allowed people to grow, respect, and value others on their own terms. We never allowed the concept of integration, fairness, and equal treatment to creep into the hearts and minds of people and evolve accordingly. Instead, we created awkward and artificial contrivances, and legal fictions, to achieve an admittedly lofty goal. However, we didn’t work on the hearts and minds of the core citizens of America. We just drove the bigots underground, and made unpopular the open expression of their views. (We also made employers financially responsible for discriminationatory acts of their employees which were developed years becoming arriving at that place of employment, as if an employer can really police the heart of an employee.) You couple those attitudes with some religious underpinnings, and nothing has really changed in the past 60 years. Their God supports their view of the world.
On the other hand, those closet liberals / potential race “minglers” who were afraid to disclose their true views during the 1950s, now feel free to do so.
The real question remains, deep down, have we really changed? If one believes that racism is primaily biologically and evolutionarily driven, and not a mere matter of choice, then it's going to take more than 60 years of artifical laws to change the DNA.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)