Teaching race is not beneficial, teach, instead, ethnic, and cultural awareness and respect.

October 11, 2023 at 11:52 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, anglo saxons, biological races, black inferiority, blacks, democracy, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, Human Genome, identity, language, Media and Race, minorities, race, Race in America, racism, skin color, teaching race | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An experience that, at times, causes disappointment is having to listen to someone fervently speaking on a topic of concern of which they lack the ability to show control. While the intention of the speaker is well-intended, the outcome fails to have value or is contrary. The subject of race falls into that category. What some people speaking or writing about race do not realize is that once the concept of race is accepted, everything that follows is counterproductive in fighting ethnic bigotry.

What people need to know about race is that the word represents a bias in that it signifies a sub-species. Any sub-species of a species is inferior to the species. The Homo Sapiens species has no sub-species. Europeans, Anglo-Saxons, and European Americans view themselves as representatives of the species-Homo sapiens and not a race. Based on the myth of European supremacy, all non-European people must identify as a race based on a variety of elements like race, color, religion, ethnicity, and others. The power to control the false concept of race and the myth is woven into the language. Every time the word race or any of its diversities are used, the myth of European (white) supremacy is protected, maintained, and promoted.

How does race manifest its power through language? Whenever the word race or any of its diversities are used, four things become apparent: unity, separation, manipulation, and discrimination. When individuals are identified by a color, that identity places them in a so-called minority group category and they are viewed as inferior. Also, because of the minority group identity, they lose any individuality/uniqueness; they become stereotypes associated with the characteristics of their group; they are treated by society in conjunction with the stereotypes of the group. The individual becomes less than a human being while experiencing unity with a group, separation for the family of human beings, viewed with stereotyped characteristics, and treated with less than human values.

How language and a lack of knowledge can turn good intentions into counterproductive results can be observed in the following example. An article in the SPLC magazine “Learning for Justice,” includes an interview with Angela Glover Blackwell on “Paving the Way to a Vibrant Multiracial Democracy.” In the interview Blackwell makes the statement relative to teaching and talking honestly about race: “Talking about race is in fact the only way democracy can succeed in a multiracial society.” Several concerns with her statement show the counterproductive elements.

The very first concern that appears in the statement is an acceptance of the false concept of race. Once race is introduced into the conversation the opportunity for truth and honesty is gone. For many years scientists, scholars, states people, and others have been asking the U.S. Government to stop using race in its literature because it is not a valid or acceptable word since it connotes a biological and genetic difference among human beings that does not exist. Yet, the government continues to confuse its citizens by using the word race along with the word ethnicity as though they were synonymous, which they are not. In any event, using the word race prevents the opportunity of a level playing field because a superior and inferior context has been established.

When the words multiracial and democracy are used in conjunction with each other a problem of perception is introduced. We know that any use of the word race brings with it four social conditions that do not comport with democracy. When the language uses a word like minority, the perception is usually not of European Americans, but on the contrary, of non-European people. The perception includes a superior and inferior understanding of people in the majority and those that are not. If education is as important as Blackwell states, then accurate and factual information must be the order of the day.

Another example of concern comes from the Blackwell statement that “Democracy is about shared responsibilities and processes for working together, as equals, to have a meaningful say in our lives and our community.” While her sentiments are positive and direct, we must question what is meant by the word “equal” in a society where people are viewed by their race? Who and what establishes what “equal” means? We know that equality pertains to mathematics, and not to humans because that is the only area where numbers are fixed.

One way to avoid the problems relative to race is to stop using it and its derivatives. Since we know that race means sub-species, how can we accept the concepts of biracial and multiracial without challenge? What we are saying by using those terms is that we accept the false concept of races. We do not refer to people as bi-species, or multi-species because we know that would be illogical. When two distinct species try to procreate, the result is a hybrid. A horse and a jackass, two distinct species, can produce a mule. A mule is neither a horse nor a jackass. A word used for so-called biracial people is mulatto, which comes from the word mule. Human beings belong to a species, not a race.

We can avoid the word race and its derivatives by using ethnic group or ethnicity. Rather than using racism, use bigotry or ethnic bigotry, for racist, use bigot. Americans, aside from their ethnic identity, have only two actual identities: state and national. Race and color are not included in either one, so why should we continue to use them?

If we look at the concept of race and democracy in the context of a worm being the concept of race and racism and an apple being democracy, then the worm in the apple represents the problem involved in saving democracy. Understanding the problem is necessary to save democracy. Presently, the focus has been on the worm and not the destruction it is experiencing in democracy. The article shows just how the worm of race is protected, maintained, and promoted. Once we begin to address the problem of race, we can also start to build a vibrant democracy.

Affirmative Action, never saying what it means, never meaning what it says.

October 5, 2023 at 5:00 pm | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, Alan Bakke, American history, black inferiority, Brown v Topeka, Civil Right's Act 1964, democracy, discrimination, education, Equal Opportunity, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, fairness, I have a dream, justice, language, Martin Luther King Jr., Race in America, social conditioning, U.S. Supreme Court | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

When Dr. Martin Luther King spoke during the March on Washington in 1963, his message was not a pep talk, but a protest of the government for not living up to its promise of civil rights for African Americans. Since that time, the shift away from the problems of the African Americans has been steady and deliberate. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act changed the focus away from the African Americans to any American feeling treated unfairly and as before, places the burden of proof on the victim. One of the changes made because of the 1964 Act was the introduction of Affirmative Action, a phrase that sounds positive, but promises nothing. In an article published recently, “Trickle-Down Diversity,” Nation writer, Adolph Reed Jr. discussed the effect of the Supreme Court’s action relative to Affirmative Action.

Reed stated at the beginning of the article that “I’ve long been a supporter of affirmative action, but it has never been a means of reducing actual inequality.” He sights statistics indicating the effect affirmative action has had on African Americans: “By 2018, 7 percent of Black Americans earned more than $150,000. Similarly, more than three-quarters of so-called wealth is held by the richest 10 percent of Black people.” From this information he concluded that “Over the course of a half-century of widening national inequality, the goal of affirmative action has not been to combat that inequality but to diversify its beneficiaries.” So, the promise of the government to focus on relieving many of the problems experienced by African Americans are still not addressed. If we examine the language used by the government, we find that while it appears to address the issues, it is like cotton candy, sweet to the taste but lacking substance.

What does “affirmative action” mean when we try to get a fixed meaning? Reed offered his own definition: “At is core, affirmative action is a technique in the implementation of antidiscrimination law, based on an understanding that overt prejudice is too limited a standard for identifying redressable discrimination.” In other words, affirmative was never intended to address the real problems facing African Americans. So, what about the programs dealing with diversity, equity, and inclusion? Do they make an impact on the discrimination problems facing African Americans? The simple answer is no.

The problem with diversity programs begins with the word diversity. If diversity training is geared to orienting new employees to a company or organization, then the meaning and intent of the program is fixed and has nothing to do with ethnic identities. However, if the program and training is to address the concern of ethnic variety in the workplace, then it fails. The fact that diversity training is offered by a company or organization indicates that a superiority and inferiority context has been established with the agent instituting the program claiming the superiority identify.

The same is true with the word diversity. How does one define a diverse individual without including self? If all Homo sapiens belong to the same species, what constitutes a diverse individual? The word diverse carries the connotation of biological or genetic differences that indicates an ethnic bias. The effect is that when individuals are identified by any of the social elements that make them different, that identity places them in a so-called minority category and they are viewed as inferior. Also, they lose any individuality/uniqueness; they become stereotypes associated with the characteristics of their group; they are treated by society in conjunction with the stereotypes of the group. The individual, in essence, becomes less than a human being. A better approach to diversity training would be ethnic or cultural awareness education.

The word equity suggests that inequality exists from the start. So, how does one identify the inequality, own it, and reckon with it? How does one eliminate inequalities through training that does not underscore inferiority? Many articles focusing on diversity training programs indicated that many of the non-European American participants felt more isolated from the group at the end of the training than at the start. What is the goal of the diversity program and training focusing on equity? What does equity mean and how is it acquired? Those questions must be addressed for the program to have any value.

Again, if the subject of inclusion is directed at a company or organization, then the goal is fixed. But if the objective is to blend individuals of various ethnic cultures, then the inclusion must be larger than the company or organization because one size does not fit all. The contrast between superior and inferior is established by the word inclusion because it suggests that there is an idea of inclusiveness, and some people are not included. Those not included must be inferior to those included. So, how does that get fixed?

Another program developed from affirmative action was the “Equal opportunity” program which was without value from the beginning. If we examine the language of the phrase, we find nothing with a fixed definition. Equal is a mathematical word and has no meaning with reference to human beings. First, what is equal and who determines whether its administration is fair? What is the model for equality?

Likewise, the word opportunity is the same as a crapshoot, no fixed value except chance. We all have the same opportunity to bet on a horse, but the only value comes with the chance to pick a horse and bet. So, what assurances comes with equal opportunity that would benefit the majority of African Americans? We know that language has the power to control society and that language is a powerful tool that can influence our thoughts, actions, and even our worldview. 

When we consider the language and effects of affirmative action and its programs involving diversity and equal opportunity, we can conclude, along with Reed, that 90 percent of African Americans have not benefited from affirmative action. On the contrary, African Americans have lost ground in trying to obtain their civil rights. The language of civil rights changed in 1963 and so did the focus on African American injustice.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.