God be Willing

Will’s position was the most difficult to write a response to. One of the things that made it difficult was I kept thinking Will isn’t really right, but he’s not really wrong either. I’ve decided to split Will’s position into three parts: the source of racism, the solutions to racism, and Will’s token Dan is wrong argument. I think I would have to talk to Will in a round about way before I could generate any sufficient answers to my questions regarding Will’s position. That’s generally how Will and I converse about most issues. As such more will probably be said during the comments section than the actual post. But before all of that a couple of clarifying notes.

First if it hasn’t been made clear by now this string of posts is not talking about overt racism. Nor is the purpose of this string of posts to generate some standard to call other people racist by. These posts were intended to help me (and anyone else) better recognize racist tendencies and notions that might be hiding within me (or yourself). Ultimately these posts hopefully generated some food for thought that would help you become a better person. I know that thanks to the responses a great amount of clarity has been reached for me (though far short from where I need to be) and I think I now have the basic tools to really start addressing this issue in my life. (Not that I hadn’t been addressing it previously, but now I can do so much more rigorously than before.) One issue that was not addressed as much as I would like was the issue of how one balances the celebration of differences, and the (for lack of a better term) entrenchment of differences. I feel Will’s point three sort of address the issue so I’ll leave it up to the comment section to flush it out if need be. Well on to Will’s observations.

Will points to the source of what might be the basis for humans developing some of our notions about race. From what I got from Will’s response I gather that when we start making classifications based on day-to-day experiences we tend to give people that are similar to us the benefit of the doubt. I think it is implied that this is not the sole source of our racial notions. My first question is sort of a abstract one and might not do a lot of people any pragmatic good (but you know what it’s my blog and I haven’t gotten any complaints so I’m going to do whatever I feel like.). By saying that we in general give people that are more similar to us the benefit of the doubt; does this imply that we are hard wired for racism? That is our minds work in a way that by default will form more favorable opinions about people that look like us (or are similar) than people who are different. It seems odd to me that human beings would have a genetic disposition that would be so far from the real truth of the world. I can see how humans might have evolved into such a state, but saying humans are hard wired for racism seems unacceptable to me. I’m also having trouble establishing when the leap happens from giving people who look like me (by look like me I mean similar to me) the benefit of the doubt to developing negative notions about other people. The concept of benefit of the doubt does work in a lot of instances but what about instances where nobody is like you. Do you think that being alone where everyone is different than you increase or decrease the likelihood of developing racist ideas? An example would be a black person who had to live in an all white town. Would that black person have a greater likely hood of developing a notion that all white people hate black people? Another source of racial notions are ones that are taught. I think that this is a larger source of racial notions than any other. Do you agree with this assessment? If you do then are these racial notions more like indoctrination, or do you think that we give deference to people that would teach us these ideas because people who tend to teach racist notions about other people tend to be similar to you? Another difficulty is where do positive yet harmful notions come from? An instance would be the idea all Asians are good at math. If we give the benefit of the doubt to people that are similar to us then how do these notions develop? Once again please forgive me for being hard to follow, it’s just the way Will and I tend to converse about issues.

Will’s second part of his response was a suggestion about how to address the racist notions that we might develop or currently have. Will’s basic advice is we should focus on the similarities we all have. I have some concerns about this approach. Granted my instincts tell me that this approach is right, but as stated earlier my instincts tell me it’s wrong as well. First by focusing on similarities do we lose sight of the value of diversity? That is if we are always focusing on why we are similar isn’t there a tendency to under appreciate the variety that makes us or other groups special? A corollary question is if we keep focusing so hard on the things that make us similar do we become insensitive to the differences that are a concern to people who are different?

Will’s third section is his token objection to Dan’s point of view. Not that the argument is a token argument, or that Will and Dan always disagree. It’s just that the three of us, Dan, Will, and Me are bound to be wrong about something, so it’s just inevitable that the three of us will find something to disagree about. But I think that this is a good thing. My only issues/questions are dealing with criteria and evaluation of usefulness. How do you judge if an institution is inclusive? Also if an institution is inclusive, when does it outlive its usefulness? I think that the Tuskeegee Airmen story is an African-American story. If it weren’t about race then it would have been no different than any other story in the war. In other words if the Tuskeegee Airmen weren’t black would the story been as important? I think the answer is no. It’s not about black people flying; it’s about black people overcoming adversity, adversity that was caused by an idea rooted in a lie.