This is a very hard subject, but my premise is simple. If someone is effectively prohibited from saying “x” because of his race, good taste, manners, or whatever then no one should say it. Basically, there must be one set of standards applicable to all. This includes racial generalizations or slurs. This is a necessary step before actual “equality” can ever be realized.Under this rule, for example, the mayor of New Orleans should have resigned, as his comments were extremely racially insensitive. Also, racial slurs would be harshly criticized no matter who made them. [It seems, however, that some slurs are so engrained in who we are as a nation that the intended victims keep them alive and in use for some reason. Ironically, and sadly, one might consider this "alter universe," this place where the intended victims nurse the slur, a bigots dream come true and a continued limit on our societies pursuit of equality. But then again, when some pains are so deep, they become a source of identification.]
This is "great."
Would the statements made by the school principal still be allowable if I made them? What if I referred to another race as being a "limiting" factor regarding my development, or, God forbid, the development of "whites." If this is not okay (and to me it is not), then I would agree with the article's author that the statements of the principal are bigoted, hateful.
Let me be clear, even if simplified, if any person holds him or herself up to a lower standard of conduct regarding how he or she refers to or treats others (or groups of others), then this person is not an equal (or "peer") to those that conform to a higher standard of conduct towards others. This includes someone, such as the principal, that uses hateful or bigoted language, but suggests that such behavior is okay given his or her history. This person is a bigot, and nothing more; not a person deserving of our society’s respect. Certainly, not a peer to those that conform to a higher standard.
Are we too afraid as a society to address this racism? Or, are we more afraid, for some bizarre reason, when such racist remarks are made by differing races? Is it less hurtful, or less divisive when one race or another makes such statements? I would argue that the answer MUST be no if equality is truly what we seek to achieve.
At some point, we must all be subject to the same standards of conduct towards each other no matter the past, or there can be no equality. It will just be an illusion under such circumstances.
Maybe such statements are no different from a white mayor saying that his city was meant to be vanilla? Yes, it is the same; even if nothing is done.
As we learned during our dreaded Dred Scott era, our liberties and opportunities must be accessible by ALL for them to hold any importance. Similarly, when our basic standards of conduct are not applicable to all of us, when we make exceptions about how we treat each other based on race or history, when using the term “cracker” is tolerated because it refers to whites, it operates to cement disappointment, finger pointing, and separation of our people.
After all, unadulterated equality during peaceful times is found when we individually no matter the race fight for change or compete by the highest “standards of conduct” applicable to all. This includes treating others with respect, and not referring to others “generally” or by the color of their skin; as if such is a materially defining factor for each of the individuals that have such skin color.
True, at times we as a nation decide that one or two groups (or races) need a helping hand to compensate for wrongs that took place in our country's past. There is nothing wrong or diminishing about utilizing such help, as it has nothing to do with the manner in which someone conducts him or herself; or how this person treats others in our society. However, and here is the rub, if the hand is left out too long, and statements such as the school’s principal are left unchallenged, then it can actually work to erode our standards of conduct towards each other, our mutual respect, and our dream of equality.
For some of those that receive this goodwill it operates to "establish" that those that are extending the goodwill are somehow less honorable; no matter how much time has past. After all, why else would such goodwill be extended unless “even now” they were guilty of some atrocity, and not to be trusted as a broad group of people? And if bigoted statements reflecting such are left unchallenged then they must be true . . .
For some that receive this goodwill it unfortunately operates to implant, at a subconscious level, that somehow they “need” this assistance to compete. They begin to internalize this as some type of inherent issue; which of course is nonsense, but is understandable given the way the mind copes with diversity. And as a result, they begin to alter their conduct defensively . . .
For some of those that extent the goodwill, or are excluded from receiving such, it unfortunately operates to reestablish hateful and stereotypical ideas previously propagated by bigots . . .
As you can see, there are no easy solutions. This is truly one area that all modern players are damned if they do and damned if they don’t, as it seems to affect how we view and treat each other.
If it was up to me, we would do away with the terms black, white, and brown when referring to a person's history. But, given our history, this is probably impracticable. Besides, what would we call the “white man”? Unfortunately, the way this term is used today, it often works to emphasize our differences, and at minimum create equality dissimilarities even if they are first and foremost perceived for some. [I wish there was an easy answer, or at least "terms" that truly reflected all of our roots. How about “American”? It has a nice ring to it, and signifies that wherever we came from we are now rooted to this land; we have no other identification or place to go, and very few of us, no matter our color, have an invitation to the man’s house. But some sorrows are just too complete, deep.]
In the end, people that even think about such things too long are left behind by the all mighty dollar, by our business, solution focused economy. If business success is your goal (good or bad), then don't waste your time asking someone else to help. The business world loves go-getters. So be a go-getter, and don't let these things depress you.
Regarding the principal's comments, it sounds like he grew up hating himself for the things he didn’t have; and now he is looking for "someone" to hate and blame; or a group of people such as the "white man." I can relate, believe it or not, but this response to one's childhood does not work or achieve anything positive. The guy just sounds like a quack now.
Actually, I was at UCLA when he was there, and I remember being disgusted about how self interested the school’s response was to his protest. Personally, I lost some respect for my own institution for ignoring criminal behavior in the name of race. I think I also lost some respect for myself because I was too afraid to say anything. Not that it would have mattered. Honestly, this fear of speaking my mind on this issue has not left me, but I still think the ideal of pursuing a better place to live is a noble cause even if it requires a bit of vulnerability.
I am disappointed that UCLA still supports this man's ideas. If this is really the case (and it appears to be so based on UCLA's indulgent interview), then part of UCLA is no longer an institution of higher learning, as it lacks real intellectual honesty or real intellectual equality. Moreover, based on UCLA's definition of "underrepresented" students, I am concerned that some of UCLA’s practices might be racist. More on this later after I have had a chance to confirm the numbers.
I still have mixed reviews about the law school. I never really felt that a true diversity of opinions was appreciated. Unfortunately, and it is not to my credit, I just kept my mouth shut. Looking at the law school's current class selection I couldn't recommend it as a first choice. It seems to me that there were much more business professors when I was there. But, it is still a fine backup school.
One final note. California might have been part of New Spain at one time, but it was never really a part of "Mexico." True, after 300 years of Spanish rule, Mexico “claimed” California as its own, but does this count? If winning a war is all it takes, then isn't California really part of the United States?
If it takes more, then haven't the Native Americans been in California longer? Or do we need to examine the history of each square foot of California? If so, do we really need to go back to the Aztecs to determine the “rightful” ancestors of Southern California. Or can we agree that it is too late to have this type of discussion -- or maybe we have decided that we can’t live together. What a depressing thought.
Do we really need to relive old battles? I think it is time for us to move on. How about you?
No comments:
Post a Comment