Why am I too deaf to hear?
People offer me their lives in pleasantly wrapped packages,
Why do I toss them aside?
God looks down from heaven and weeps.
Why do I not catch his tears & wash myself clean?
A word fitly spoken is all I can muster;
With quiet resignation I stand in my space.
A line here, a thought there.
Ideas, they mean nothing.
My mind open and closed,
Why this tragic human race.
When thinking about this the other day, I began to wonder what other painful or annoying situations in my life I was blaming on some inherent problem when it was only my flawed behavior that was causing the agony. Most glaring was my tendency to argue about everything. Having a constant desire to be “right” isn’t something I can even deny after having been told about by so many people for so many years. I’m just not sure what to do about it.
No one wakes up in the morning and says, “I can’t wait to be wrong about a bunch of stuff today.” Often my arguments are meant to be constructive in the problem solving sense. Now, in my mid-thirties, I realize I have surrounded myself with people that fit two categories: 1) they either like to argue and have some skill at it (e.g. Adam or Christian) or 2) they refuse to engage me at all (e.g. my wife and my mother). However, I think I would better off in some relationships if I could, at the very least, tone down the rhetoric, or even better just keep my mouth shut after a certain point.
My wife won’t even begin to discuss topics related to race, racism, prejudice, or discrimination. Not only does she dislike my penchant for argument, but she knows how thoroughly frustrated I am with the mainstream abuse of the topic. This post is as much me venting (which I don’t like to admit) as it is the attempt to convey any type of message, moral or otherwise. I won’t delve into racial nomenclature; however let me say that the hyphenated-American thing drives me nuts.
There are two huge mistakes made by those dealing with issues surrounding race. The first error is that the vast majority misuse the terminology. So, I have below the actual definitions for terms often used in the discussion of race.
racism (Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 30 Dec. 2009.
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
prejudice (Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 30 Dec. 2009.
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
discrimination (Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 30 Dec. 2009.
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
So very simply, racism is the ideology that a race is in part or in whole inherently (genetically?) superior or inferior, prejudice is a negative feeling about a particular race of people, and discrimination is the act of treating a person differently due to race or any number of other criteria. Now, instead of focusing on the misuse, I would like to practice the correct usage. So let’s try using these definitions. I’ll provide an example, and you can decide whether it is racism, prejudice, and/or discrimination. I’ll make the first one easy. (highlight blanks below the statements to view the answers)
--Hitler decides to murder millions of Jews along with other groups in order cleanse Europe and create an Aryan super race.
If you said all three you would be correct. He believed the Aryan race was superior, felt hatred towards other races, and acted on those thoughts and feelings by murdering millions of people.
--Michael Richards (Kramer from Seinfeld) goes on a tirade onstage in a comedy club directed toward a heckler repeatedly calling him a “nigger” and if I remember correctly even making a reference to lynching. Think carefully now.
After much consideration (at least 10 seconds), I’m going to say he is only guilty of prejudice. The comments revealed the malice he felt, but I do not know that he would have discriminated by attacking a person of a different race less vehemently in the same circumstances. He also showed no evidence of supporting the superiority of one race over another.
--Examine the statement: “White folks was in caves while we was building empires.... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” – Al Sharpton speaking at Kean College
None of the above. Mr. Sharpton was stating a historical narrative. The term “homo” may have a negative connotation in that context, but I won’t go so far as to say it demonstrates a prejudice.
--Black men run faster than white men.
This is racist. It is a general statement about an inherent trait. No statement of personal feeling about the fact is made, and there is no indication of any action being taken. The problem is that you all know it is true. If you attempt to deny this do two things: 1) Hit yourself in the head with a hammer for being so naïve, and 2) Take a quick look at the Olympic medalists in the 100m for the past 20 years. http://www.databaseolympics.com/sport/sportevent.htm?sp=ATH&enum=110
By now you should be admitting to yourself that you are a racist. I mean look up the pictures of the runners listed on the link. They are from different countries, cultures, and environments, but across the board they are what most people would call "black". I know where I’m going with this, and even I am beginning feel uncomfortable. Let’s take a look at the definition for the term “race” which this post centers around, and see if I can bail us out.
1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations—Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid—are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points—such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another—many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact. (emphasis added)
Since we all have a common heredity/descent, the definition contradicts division of humanity (at least biologically) by race. I base this on the Biblical account of creation, but if that doesn’t satisfy please consider “mitochondrial eve” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_eve. Either way our common ancestry isn't in question. So, biologically race is a non-issue which makes actual racism an impossibility.
If not race then...? It is said that “nature abhors a vacuum.” So, if race is discarded as illusory, some other way to classify groups of people will arise, but my hope is that they will be recognized as subjective. There is no doubt that people will continue to hold prejudices for many reasons, and discrimination even without race will always exist. However, eliminating race as a possibility frees people to better understand who they are, and even be who they want to be. It bashes the remnants of racial supremacy in any form which most would agree is a blessing for the human race, and besides there many more interesting and valid reasons to dislike people than the imaginary construct of “race”.
Note: This is a simplicifcation of a complex topic.
How does this relate to welfare? First let me define the term. By welfare, I am mean financial support for a parent who is the full-time primary caregiver for a child without sufficient support from a spouse or the child’s other parent. Traditionally this would be the child’s mother, and I will assume this generalization for the remainder of the post.
When the situation of the single parent without adequate outside support is examined in light of the statement regarding government action in the first paragraph, the exception becomes obvious. The full-time mother is not supposed to be providing the financial support for the family unit. The role she can best to fulfill is providing nurture, protection, and guidance for her children. Ideally, the financial support would come from a husband, the children’s father, family members, or private charitable organizations, but with the explosion of single parent homes and the failure of fathers, the private scenario is not nearly as prevalent as most of us would like it to be.
Bottom line, I want our government to provide financial assistance for the full-time single parents even though the incentives it creates may not be ideal. My heart tells me that a child should not be taken from a mother, and my reasoning tells me that most often the mother has the instinct and incentives to best raise their own children. I just don’t see another solution.