As you can imagine, yesterday's post about racism landed a few emails in my inbox:
"I agree in part with your analysis. I don't want someone elected to the highest office BECAUSE of race or because of gender, but rather on qualifications, ideas, or ability to be a leader. However, I still would very much like to see either one of them elected. I'd like to know that I'm living in a country where it is possible for a black man to be president or at least possible to make a good run for it, and then let the best man or woman win!"
I find this response encouraging due to the writer's emphasis on qualifications in choice selection. The writer's selection equation is no longer simply:
a) I choose (candidate) based on variable Y (race/gender)
but...
b) I choose (candidate) based on variable Y (race/gender) PLUS variable Z (qualifications)
The writer then responded:
"But actually my thought goes beyond my choice, to others, so this may or may not be mathematically correct or acceptable logic but: 'I choose (candidate) based on variable Z (qualifications) and hope that others also select on Z rather than de-selecting on variable Y (race/gender).'"
A biologist also wrote, to clarify the role of evolution in racism:
"...racial hatred is intrinsically evolutionary — how do we know if someone is family? They look like us. If they do not, then we don't help them. If they are different enough, we fight them, because they steal our resources. We dislike because of difference. Sadly (we intellectualize), this is normal."
And, in response to the email quoted at top:
"...(the writer) likes someone for being different...(this position) is not endogenous in origin, it is intellectual and experiential in its basis, and therefore is not intrinsic or instinctive. The desire for someone different — in this case to hold office — is (consciously or not) determined by a desire for certain intellectual goals to be met. Something (the writer) has been taught, or has experienced, leads them to an anti-evolutionary opinion."The wonder and strength of the human brain."
To summarize, choosing to experience someone of a different race is a conscious decision which runs contrary to evolutionary instinct.
What becomes contentious is how we, as a society, choose to promote exogenous thinking. How we choose, as a group, to reason our way past our biological instincts.
The process of creating internal awareness of self-worth, self-sufficiency, and self-confidence, what we call self-esteem, is created through a series of TRY (then) FAIL (or) SUCCEED experiments: Constructivism.
1. Attempting, then failing, builds realistic expectations, and an accurate perception of self-limits.2. Attempting, then succeeding, builds self-confidence and mastery.
This is why it is so important to build the opportunity for failure into learning environments and classrooms. And into the lives of young children. Failure is an equal contributor to building self-esteem.
What do you think happens to an individual's self-esteem if she knows or discovers her "success" is due to a variable she cannot control? A variable such as skin color?
I would argue her self-esteem is undermined.
This is precisely why any quota system — treating individuals as a collective based on race, gender, ethnicity (or socioeconomic status) — is damaging to a society. The process of making any group "more equal" through legislation, such as Affirmative action or corporate political lobbying, requires the excluded remainder to be treated "less equal."
Endogenous discriminatory behavior is reinforced.
The "less equal" become disenfranchised. Look at what is happening in Kenya. Remember my simple human equation:
a) Inclusion + Opportunity = Peace
b) Alienation + Stagnation = Violence
The first step toward societal healing is, as individuals, to voluntarily look beyond "—isms" such as race or gender, and make decisions based on individual merit. Before that can happen, we need to feel "equally equal" in the eyes of the law.
A societal system that does not recognize "majorities" or "minorities" but instead is based on individual human rights is the only logical answer: equal treatment of the smallest individual units (one person) within the system, rather than legally imposed sub-group treatment as defined by secondary characteristics.
Individualism, not collectivism.
Comments