Race Relations

The inspiration for this entry comes from a Tweet by @deprogrammer9.
The only social "class" that actually exists is humanity. Everything else is a lie.
At the very big risk of being labeled a resist, I have one question about humanity that sticks in my craw: What happened?


We know that Homo sapiens first appeared in Central Africa. We know that our far distant ancestors migrated up the Riff Valley. We know they populated the Near East, Middle East, and Far East. We know they spread into Europe. We know they were probably dark skinned, with tight curly hair. This is at least my understanding of the chain of events. So, what happened?

How did we lose our pigmentation, and hair, and advanced understand of math, and complex rhythms? Moreover, how did the Europeans decided that being pale was superior to being pigmented? And how did it come about that the idea of inferiority was sold to others who were more like our common ancestors? It may have something to do with our acceptance of Neanderthal mates in some far time of lost antiquity. That we have traced through DNA research. And as broadcast by the BBC in 2001, it may simply be a device to explain a fluke of history by the Greeks of ancient times. I simply do not know.
Again, I have to refer to past research.
The idea that there is some kind of Anglo-Saxon racial superiority is a myth. It is, however, a myth which dies a hard death as heard in the last lines of Tony Blair’s resignation speech on May 10, 2007. Mr. Blair stated, “The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth.” While there is nothing wrong with patriotism, this is the same kind of rhetoric for which the U.S. has been criticized during the current Bush administration.

There is no discussion on U.S. domination which does not include race relations. Race relations in the U.S. have never been amicable. The discussion on the Anglo-Saxon domination is in no way to be misconstrued as an endorsement of European racial superiority. The recent Anglo-Saxon cultural, economic and political domination of the globe is simply historic fact. Over the past 6000 years of human history, there have been many different ruling cultures and expressions.

At the dawn of Western history, the known world was ruled by the Egyptians. They ruled the west far longer than the Anglo-Saxon line has ruled in recent history. Racism, according to a BBC report broadcast in the early days of the current decade, goes back to the enlightened Greeks who gave us the ideals of self-determination and the republic form of government. Others argue that it first appeared in Spain between 722, and 1492. In some ways it is a relatively new idea. In other ways it is simply a form of tribal based discrimination. It can be said that India’s cast system has its roots in such tribalism. Even there, however, some argue that racism has its roots in socioeconomic distinctions. According to Wikipedia’s article on caste, the word is derived from the Roman casta meaning which can mean lineage or race. While the racist root of the Indian system of institutional discrimination is well known, it is ignored for the sake of economic opportunity and corporations ignore this.

The United States as a constitutional democratic republic has existed for 220 years. That is just over one tenth of the span from the year zero to today. Political, cultural, and racial equality is a relatively new dynamic to the nation’s landscape. Some members of minorities in the U.S. have successfully taken advantage of opportunities made available since 1964. Yet, others still suffer the stigma, and have grievous resentment of the sting of past racial oppression. Many minorities still cry in outrage for unwise racial innuendos.

Racial equality is so new that there is a fear that this fragile equity will be swept aside as quickly as it was brought in. Some fear it is already happening. After 100 years of struggle against racial oppression (1865 to 1965) the gains are still new, and the details and social expression of equity are still malleable. Any loss of status (perceived or real) could begin the decay of gains of the last 43 years. Moreover, minorities in the United States are still disproportionately impoverished as a percentage of the population. There is no doubt that there is still a lot of room for improvement in the United States when it comes to full equality and racial acceptance. But, improvements are being made.

In the science of criminology there is a theory known as labeling theory. It is used to explain why a mischievous child can grow up to be a hardened criminal. The constant reinforcement of the child being told he is “bad,” “stupid” or “lazy” will result in the child taking on those traits as he enters young adulthood. This is the very reason why it is now socially unacceptable to use negative racial slurs. However, in society at large, labeling theory still plays out with negative effect. Every time a challenge is made that the predominant culture is acting in a discriminatory manner, the charge gets less and less sympathy.

If a person is chronically accused of being a racist, or is striving to keep racism in check, they will get to the point that they become immune to the reprimand. They will respond to the accuser with personal apathy if not animosity. They will come to accept the label and ignore any social stigma attached to the label. Once that occurs the accused loses all ability to exert any type of control to correct the offensive behavior.

Much of this immunity, or hostility, comes from the frame of reference. Anyone who began school, or was born, after 1965 has no knowledge of institutional racism in the United States. They never saw lynchings. They never saw “Whites Only” signs, or the “Colored Entrance” off the back alley. They know nothing about school segregation. They never saw the midnight raids by the men in white sheets. The only men in white sheets these people know are the pictures of terrorists from the Middle East.

At best, segregation and discrimination was something that was committed by their parents or grand-parents. To them, racism is just another form of political grappling, and in their collective, political cynicism they are sure that someone is making money from the hustle. Are they wrong in that opinion? These young men and women who are now addressing their own relative poverty and diminished economic opportunity have little concern for the plight of others who are, due to the legacy of state sanctioned institutional racism, still further down the economic scale than they are. It is even harder to come to grips with the social inequity due to race when they see, and hear, through the media, minorities who are better off than they are. Those minorities may be exceptional people, or they may be gifted tokens of the American Dream, but the majority uses them as examples of the successes of the racial equalization in the nation.

The history of rampant racism in the U.S. is fading to a form of dark mythology for younger Americans. Since racism is outlawed, and no longer state sponsored, they see it as a social issue of some isolated sub-cultures. The constant accusations of racism fall on deaf ears in the rising generation; they have no clue of what they are being accused of except as some kind of slur.

The further the generations get from the era of institutional racism and institutional oppression, the less effect the criticism will have on them. It is simply not real to the majority of the Anglo-Saxon citizens. It does not exist. The only thing that exists to the Anglo-Saxon majority is socioeconomic class. All issues revolve around economic resources and liquid assets. This is the real world for the Anglo-Saxon. The only focus is on acquiring and securing economic resources. There is no other issue. It all comes down to compete, win, or die. This is the U.S.A. today.

© 2008

On a side note: People accuse me of being a Marxist, Communist, or Socialist. I accept those label with a certain sense of honor. Having never read Marx (something I will soon correct), and my exposure to Socialism being from Sinclair writing in 1902, I can honestly tell you that the observations in my various works only goes to show that there is independent verification of the need, and drive, to a socialized economy in the world. I am a Socialist because Capitalism is a dismal failure. I will write more on that later.

Comments

Popular Posts