The Fundamental Defense Toward Segregation

So long as the individuals in question are accepted as human by the discriminatory body, segregation of them is at it’s very root unconstitutional.

As the Fourth Amendment states,  the people have the right to be secure from unreasonable seizures. To deny them access to any facilities, such as the restrooms of their choosing, is to arrest their movement and thereby seize them of their free will. By denying their right to travel and act as wished the government seizes the individual, without warrant, and so by infringes upon their Fourth Amendment rights.

Moreover, a critical analysis of the amendment may find no alternative but to decide that the issuance of Warrants, as specified by the amendment, is not an exception to the reason-ability of a search but the/a specification of the means by which searches in general may be conducted. Specifically, Warrants as described are to be the means by which searches are to be conducted in absence of extenuating circumstances. Lacking such circumstances, as in the case of segregated restrooms, warrants are required to seize and individual of their free will.

The Impact of Social Roles on Identity and Action

Weaving an Identity Tapestry describes how society’s adoration of particular roles and disgust for others makes for a difficult duality or multiplicity of leanings within an individual when their wishes of themselves to be do not fall plainly in one category. Sonja D. Curry-Johnson therein explains how she feels “We should be able to bring our whole selves to the table.”

Though at the time it did not seem relevant, I recently watched a video of a study where they compared the learning abilities of chimpanzees and human children. After being instructed on how to retrieve a treat through a number of steps both groups learned how to do so. However, when provided with the same situation where it was clear many of the steps were irrelevant, only the monkeys bypassed the unnecessary steps. The study concluded that human children’s expectation to be taught was not possessed by the chimpanzees (or was different) so that the kids wrongly assumed they’d been optimally trained and/or some moral/emotional component existed (possibly the instructor’s feelings toward them).

As I’ve previously stated (as surely others as well), social roles literally characterize the opinions of society and are used to teach others how they “ought” to behave or compel them if they object. It seems to me that this attempt to teach may be usefully compared to the study I saw.

I limit it to the teaching aspect as the use of roles to compel is, as with most all compulsion, not something I support. However, even so limiting the analysis, I can see how one might feel the same tension which Curry-Johnson describes. Having been told how to live there becomes a burden of proof one must overcome to even put their own analysis on equal footing with that which was recommended. Even once somebody has convinced themselves they are right and society’s advice is wrong, they must find the strength to act in a way which may cause them to lose the support of their mentor.

Without any malicious intent involved there can be a great level of strife within the individual. Surely it also becomes more difficult for the protégé as the frequency and degree of disagreements rise. They must encounter the fear that they may, in rejecting a portion of the instructor’s advise, push away the instructor’s support.  This fear is twofold. On one hand, if the mentor finds identity in their beliefs and opinions then rejection of those beliefs would be tantamount to rejection of the mentor. Yet, even when this is not true the student may wander so far that their mentor no longer has the perspective to continue providing useful assistance.

In all this analysis I see only two possible wrongs that are committed. The first being that society may feel so strongly for others that it may move to compel them to do what it feels is best (an argument for minimal government). The second, and far less obvious as to why it’s wrong, being that individuals tend to find their identity in the opinions and decisions they reach.

Of course, I’m not entirely sure the latter is the wrong thing to do. I’ve simply demonstrated that in doing so mentors burden their protégés. But the only alternative I see would be to find one’s own identity in relation to those around them and in doing so they would again burden themselves against being true to their own wishes.

Considering that I only see two useful methods of defining one’s own identity and both are of relatively equal burden upon that party, I conclude that the mere presence of role-related internal strife is not conclusive evidence of societal wrongdoing (compulsion). Instead, it may be the ever-present result of humanity’s educational attempts.

Weaving an Identity Tapestry by Sonja D. Curry Johnson. (an essay found in…)

Listen Up: voices from the next feminist generation edited by Barbara Findlen.

National Geographic’s Ape Genius via Youtube

PS. I don’t actually think they actually said that second conclusion in the Chimp study, but it seemed obvious to me so I credited it to them.

Imigration and Americanization

It is understandable for a person to move to another nation to seek the opportunities which it provides, and which are unavailable in their native country. Similarly, it is understandable for them to wish to keep their culture, mindset, beliefs and social temperament unchanged. There is talk that Americanization rapes immigrants of their heritage.

It is however the opposite. For if the people of one nation do not have the opportunities of another, it is for some reason; it may be physical or biological(which it obviously isn’t); it may arise for the form of government and the particular laws it imposes; and it may be the result of their culture, and social temperament. Whatever the cause, it is not random that some nations prosper more than merely their physical conditions indicate they would. There is a certain level of efficiency/effectiveness in their ideas.

For a people to move into such a more prosperous nation, take advantage of its promise, and yet maintain the culture and outlook which failed to provide them change, rapes the more prosperous State of its gains. Furthermore, if those people reproduce at an  inordinate rate they can effectively take over, or alter the landscape of the country they move into and to such an extent that it is ruled not by the ideas of the founders and their decedents, but by the unsuccessful ideas of outsiders who refuse to adopt the the successful strategy of their new ‘home’.

Not all immigrants refuse to adopt their new country’s society as their own, however by moving to another country and discounting its culture, society and governers many bite the hand which feeds them.

Biology of Race

I’ve written on this before, but I watched a video in class which argued that there’s no biological basis for race, and implied that because of this we should not use race as a social factor. Well, if you’ve read what I’ve written over the years it’s clear that I completely agree with the ultimate cause that biology should not be used for any legal or social purpose. Actions, while possibly rooted in biological or social causes, are not to be judged by what caused them but by their character.

However, the way they went about it was terrible. Throughout the show they went along with a class which was testing their mitochondrial DNA, and demonstrated that the students were just as often similar to those of other races as to those of the same. They cited that 85% of genetic variation occurs amongst a group rather than between groups.  They said, there is no genetic basis for race. In sum, they completely ignored the point.

As some in my class noted, mitochondrial dna doesn’t actually code anything for people, it’s simply the remnants of long ago, and is passed down within the mitochondria from the mother. It is useful only so far that it traces you back to your mother, and her mother, and so on, but without actually saying anything about anyone on the lineage.

This, in conjunction with other evidence such as the 85% stat demonstrates that races are not fundamentally(I totally forgot a much better word than fundamentally) different. However, race is not simply about differences between groups, indeed it is mostly about similarities within in, and this claim means that 15% of genetic variation occurs between races. In truth their statistic may more accurately read to say that those of a ‘race’ are 15% more likely to share important coding dna.

This may not be a perfect translation of the information, I’m kind of tired, but the point remains. They fail to address sufficiently the aspect that race is useful for some things because some traits are more popular among certian groups. They even demonstrate this when citing sickle cell trait, but cast it aside as resulting from region rather than race… but they just showed that skin color, the most recognisable basis for ‘race’ is also related to region. In essence they only prove that race decribes where you come from… Well, that really doesn’t do much for moving the arguement.

Stereotypes vs. Discrimination

Welcome to the first post of my new blog… anyway.

Stereotypes are assumptions and generalizations about a group of individuals. They, as with all ideas and ideologies exist only so far as they are useful. It is entirely useless to think that blue is green and green is blue because it has absolutely no effect on your interpretation of the world. Similarly, thinking pain is pleasurable finds little support as it is contrary to existence; it leads to death(read Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals for the exception). The point continues, that stereotypes only persist if they are useful to those who hold them, or at least not harmful to them. Because of this, for a stereotype to persist, a trait of those considered does not have to be true for all individuals in the group. It does not even need to be true for the majority. So long as it is true for a significant number such that it can prove useful to base actions partly on the stereotype.

Now, there are two uses as I see it. One it can be useful in protecting the holder of the belief. For example the fear that black men may rob you can protect the bearer of the belief in the very few cases where it is true; implying that the trait must be significantly more prevalent in the group, otherwise the theory’s relative utility would be neutralized and cause harm. The other possibility, is that the theory can be useful in “keeping them in their place”, or maintaining the current order.

Now, I’m not one who believes the empowered try to “keep them in their place”, or so far as they do, it is an unconscious activity which is the tangential result of stereotypes which prove useful for the prior cause. That said, it is clear that some do use stereotypes to impose the order. However, there is is HUGE difference between stereotypes and discrimination. While stereotype may alert extra attention to the black man entering the elevator, it does little. In fact, it does nothing, because they are but thoughts. And while actions are based upon thoughts, they are separate, and under the control of the individual. If he or she decides to act upon a stereotype without confirmation that the belief is true in this particular case, and implicit in the word, this action causes harm to the one acted upon, it becomes discrimination.

Therefor, discrimination should be strictly opposed. It should be fought against. In fact, discrimination does not even rely on stereotypes. To discriminate, could be motivated by other causes, namely the wish to remain in power. As a result we need to differenciate between the two. For if stereotypes persits so strongly, then it is likely that there is truth in them, as a result, we must address the  truth in the belief. Only when the stereotypes subside is it possible that the underlying causes may have dissapeared.

the condition of racial middling

caution, this obviously contains generalizations which ought not be considered without exception for even the majority of cases. indeed this is an unnecessary precaution I take here to warn against being offended, since it ought be well known that I intend no offense and support no racism.

Why does the “black man” want the white woman? Indeed why does the “black woman” want the white man in so increasing a fashion? The reason I’ve sensed is not that the “black man” does not want the “black woman”, but rather that the black woman does not want the black man. Over time the black man has gained for himself a poor reputation (not to delve into the sociological causes which may have precipitated this). However, it is indeed not an arbitrary reputation perpetuated merely by media, but by virtue of the circumstances, is one of fact. Sixty percent of black families are headed by a single parent, mostly women* . More than ninety percent of black children will be raised in such a female headed household**.

In the eyes of the black woman who has experienced this trouble, the black man all too often unfit for fatherhood. As a result, she does not want the black man. Of course, this does not even address the entire culture of drug related crime while has come to define “black culture”. And while the causes of this may be traced(I have to an extent in other blogs), the truth remains that it affects the perception of the black woman. So when such a woman dismisses the approach of those she senses are unable or unwilling to provide for her and any possible children, the black man is forced to look elsewhere. This is why the “black men want white women”. The inverse is also true, white men do not suffer from the same problems. They not only appear to be more capable(in providing), but more respectful since “white culture” places far more value in women.

Yet why does the the black man gain any ground if the white man is more desirable? For many, specifically the upper and middle class, the realities of life are not apparent. Unlike the lower classes, the “upper class” women do not see the troubles which black women have seen for so long. It is simply ignorance combined with a distaste for the racial prejudices which remain to some extent within “white society”. For those white women in the lower class who like black men, ignorance/ambivalence is similarly true. It seems naive to suggest that poor black/white women do not see the situation of black fathers. More likely they simply do not care. They may feel their relationship is different, as it may be. Or they may recognize the struggles related to black fatherhood, and decide to continue with relationships with hopes of fighting the causes which bear upon the black man.

Ultimately I find this logic far preferable to the alternative which suggests black men seek the company of white women out of some sort of malice. That said, even this belief has some weight considering that the resentment of black men toward the society which injustices them is often strong. To place this blame on the white man as a race is however clearly misguided. For as time progresses, assuming no “corrective” measures, this trend of black women and white men or black men and white women will continue to the point that races are effectively and entirely destroyed. And if still no measures have been taken to equal the poor then the difference with remain.

* Nathan Rutstein (1993) Healing Racism in America (pg. 4)
** Hill, R. (1999). The strengths of Black families. New York: Emerson-Hall.