 Originally Posted by Marvo
Hating another person based on genetic traits is irrational and childish. That is a fact.
But what if being racist is a genetic predisposition? 
 Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration
I wasn't racist until I went to college.* Then every second of every day they bashed my head over with "be tolerant" and "accept that people are different." Thanks, school, because before I didn't think people were different. Now I've been indoctrinated with a constant thick line drawn between people groups, a non-stop reminder that we are different.
If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, I'm not sure that it's really feasible to go through life being "color blind." There are some differences between races, sexes, etc., and whether those differences happen to be small or large, unimportant or important, to simply ignore these differences outright is to delude oneself. The key to combating racist attitudes, IMO, is not to convince ourselves that there is no such thing as group differences, but rather to learn to accept these differences in a nonjudgmental way -- even value them. It sounds like that's essentially what the school was doing. Whether or not their method is really effective in reducing racist attitudes is an open, empirical question, but I just want to point out that it's not obviously flawed.
Consider this analogy. You're a parent and you want your child to avoid getting high. As you know and as your child does not know, it is possible to get high from the nitrous oxide in cans of whipped cream ("whip-its"). Do you warn your child about how unsafe this is, or do you not say anything? On the one hand, if you warn them, you will thereby inform them that this is an easy way to get high. However, they will also know how dumb it is before they ever try it. On the other hand, if you don't warn them, they won't even learn that it's a possible way to get high for some time. However, when they do learn (and they will), it will probably be from their peers who are encouraging them to try it. They won't hear anything at all about how risky and bad for their health it is, they will only hear about how fun and easy it is. I submit that it's better to warn the child in advance than to foster their ignorance.
To bring the analogy back to racism: There are group differences, and college students will learn them. So is it better to let the students go on as long as possible believing that there are no such thing as group differences--until they find out for themselves, of course, and who knows what attitudes that will foster--or is it better to preemptively foster an accepting and nonjudgmental attitude toward those differences? I submit that it's probably better to do the latter than the former.
|
|
Bookmarks