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.
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.
When I write and speak about how the language of race enslaves Americans and constantly present African Americans and other non-European people as inferior, the following example should suffice to make the point. In an article “Being Black Means You’re Disabled – People Are Up in Arms Over What This Ivy League School Is Teaching,” story by Emily Valadez •2h 8/25/2023, the following sentence is offered.
“Systemic racism refers to the systems in place in society that create racial inequality for people of color.”
Since we have not and do not challenge the truth and facts about the language we use, we fail to understand and appreciate the predicament in which we are placed. For example, the reference to “Systemic racism” should be challenged because race is not a valid word relating to identity since it has no biological or genetic basis. Certainly, a system of ethnic bigotry exists, and has existed since before the founding of this nation. The language should avoid using the word race and its derivative, racial because those words protect and promote European supremacy. The word race is a bigoted word in that it was developed to signify a sub-species of the Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens have no sub-species except in the word race. The objective in developing the word as a reference to sub-species was to render all peoples not European inferior to them. In essence, only Europeans represent the Homo Sapien species.
The next part of the sentence, the word inequality has no fixed or specific meaning except in mathematics. Equal cannot apply to human beings, just fixed entities like numbers. The word is used to suggest “fairness” which sounds pleasing but is also a relative word with no fixed meaning. When the word is challenged, confusion sets in because no definite parameters are established from which to judge and make a balanced decision.
The last part of the sentence refers to “people of color” and continues to add confusion to be objective of the sentence in a reasonable manner. Who and what are people of color? The reference to any person or group of people using color is a form of bigotry. What makes it bigotry is the implied reference to race that is associated with people and a color. Since black and white are colors, what distinguishes the people of color from people without color, if they exist?
The title of the article states that “Being Black means you are disabled,” suggests that something is inherently wrong with blacks that render them disabled. The problems visited on the African American population is a direct result of actions taken against them by European Americans. The situations in which African Americans find themselves can be directed attributed to their treatment in America. The language is misleading and confusing.
What happens when we fail to challenge the language of race was explained by John H. Stanfield II, “Race as a myth is a distorting variable that convolutes and in other ways distracts attention from the variables that really matter in understanding how and why human beings think, act, and develop as they do. The extent to which race does exist, it is an experience, it is not phenotype real or imagined.” (Montagu, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth, the fallacy of race.) The myth of European supremacy continues because we are complacent relative to the language and fail to realize the damage it contributes to our society.
What is disheartening about the article is the fact that Princton University, one of the prime institutions of American Education, did not recognize what the language they employed was doing. Rather than using the opportunity as a teachable opportunity, they instead, whether knowingly or not, protected and promoted European supremacy. When color is used to identify a person or a group of people that is a form of bigotry and discrimination. The history, culture, language, religion, food, and all the things that pertain to an ethnic group’s uniqueness are lost when the group is turned into a monolith by being referred to as a color. The very word “black” is used as an adjective preceding the noun race. Any time race is used, it protects and promotes the myth of European supremacy. Of course, many African Americans and non-European Americans do not question the use of the word black, but that does not make it acceptable and not historically demeaning. Maya Angelou once stated that “when we (people) know better, we do better.”
What Princton could have done in providing information about the course was to make the point that no one comes to America using color as an identity. When the Africans that were enslaved were brought to America, one of the first things to happen was the taking away of any identity and replacing it with words like negro, black, colored, slave, and others. The language used in identifying the enslaved changed over the years until present day usage includes black, African American, non-European American. African Americans did not choose to be identified as blacks but were socialized to accept and use it without challenge until the 1970’s civil rights era. Rather than recognizing the permanent stigma associated with its usage, many decided to retain it. Even today, many will try to defend it, not realizing that each usage protects and promotes European (white) supremacy.
Since the foundation of America numerous voices have attempted to inform society relative to the use of the word race. A few scientists and scholars have challenged the governments and society’s continued use of the word race. Many anthropologists have noted regarding the concept of race: “(1) it was artificial, (2) it did not correspond to the facts, (3) it led to confusion and the perpetuation of error, and finally, (4) for all these reasons it was scientifically unsound, or rather, more accurately, that is was false and misleading.” They also concluded that “based as it was om unexamined facts and unjustifiable generalizations, it were better that the term ‘race,’ corrupted as it is with so many deceptive and dangerous meanings, be dropped altogether from the vocabulary.” (Montagu, p.107.)
A common belief is that everything we know, we acquired from our socialization in society. From day one, we began the socialization process, and it continues throughout our lives. However, just because we learned something that proved to be incorrect does not mean we cannot correct it. Educational institutions like Princeton must help to educate society out of its ignorance and theirs.
Many of us sometimes experience remembering placing our keys down somewhere, but when we try to retrieve them, they are nowhere in sight. After we have looked in all the places, we think they could be, low and behold we spot them in front of us right in plain sight. They were not hidden from us; we just did not see them at first. That experience can serve as an example of what happens daily in America and the Western World relative to ethnic bigotry. Ethnic bigotry is present, but just not seen because we have become conditioned to not questioning its presence, but it is present in the language. One reason we do not challenge the language is because we have been conditioned to accept it on face value. That acceptance, however, represents the problem of our not seeing the ethnic bigotry.
We have been told for several hundred years that that the word “race” is socially constructed to represent a particular meaning and as C. Loring Brace has noted that…” despite almost universal belief to the contrary, the concept of ‘race’ as applied to the picture of human biological diversity had absolutely no scientific justification.” The word “race” was developed to represent a subspecies, inferior to the species Homo sapiens, and to promote, to protect, and to preserve the myth of European supremacy and domination. So, how does a society go about making the myth a reality? Stephen Ullmann stated that “Words [language] certainly are the vehicles of our thoughts, but they may be far more than that: they may acquire an influence of their own, shaping and pre-determining our processes of thinking and our whole outlook.” America and the Western World wanted to ensure that the myth remains current, so they ignored the facts regarding race.
In 1997, Ashley Montagu, stated in an introduction to the 6th edition of his book Man’s Most Dangerous Myth, the fallacy of Race, that the purpose of his book was…:
to make use of the scientifically established facts to show that the term “race” is a socially constructed artifact—that there is no such thing in reality as “race,” that the very word is racist: that the idea of “race,” implying the existence of significant biologically determined mental differences rendering some populations inferior to others, is wholly false; and that the space between as idea and reality can be very great and misleading.
Regardless of the many appeals made by many Americans of note, the government and society continue to use the word race as acceptable when we know that its purpose is to support ethnic bigotry. The fact that the word “race” and many of its diversities are used daily and that they are meant to denigrate their target, fails to register on the sender and the receiver. For example, like the word “race,” the words of color black, red, brown, and yellow are not used as compliments to the groups, but as a sign of their inferiority. The obvious exception of color in this group is the color white because it is usually used as a compliment. When only an ethnic group’s color is used rather than the phrase that is intended: black race, red race, brown race, and yellow race, it is a form of bigotry. If race is included in any form, the message shows disrespect because it signifies inferiority. Unfortunately, when an explanation is offered to some individuals and groups that use a color as an ethnic group identity in their business or organizations, they are quick to show their innocence by defending their use of the color. The fact that they do not recognize the disrespect of the group is due to the power of the language and the failure to question it.
Color is not a part of any human being’s identity regardless of their ethnicity and nationality. How is it that the government, and especially the U.S. Census Bureau continue to use the term “race” considering all the facts and evidence to its being bogus? Could that be a sign of ethnic bigotry? The word “race” is just a small part of the language used by the government and society to protect the myth of European supremacy.
Another word that is frequently used by government and society relative to population is “minority.” Like the word race, minority is a biased term. Most dictionaries offer at least two different usages of the word, but both involve numbers. The first states that minority is “the smaller number or part, especially a number that is less than half the whole number.” The second states that minority is “a relatively small group of people, especially one commonly discriminated against in a community, society, or nation, differing from others in race, religion, language, or political persuasion.” If we notice carefully in the second example, we find the evidence to support the disrespect and bigotry associated in referring to a group of people as a minority. Yet, we hear it daily.
The word “minority” while used in America to describe non-European people shows its selective use. If we applied the word minority to the world population, the people of non-European heritage would represent the majority. We know that eighty percent of the world’s population is brown. That fact is seldom referenced in topics focusing on minorities. Although the word is biased, hardly anyone underscores that fact. What lies inside the use of the word is the suggestion that different races are included and therefore they are inferior to the majority. The use of the word minority as an indicator of race is a form of bigotry, but we find it being used at every level of society without regard to the negative implications it carries.
The use of language as a vehicle for promoting the concept of race and the myth of European supremacy has always been dangerous. Again, Montagu pointed out, …” the very word “race is itself a racist [bigoted] term not simply because it represents a congeries of errors, or that it is a spurious ‘reality’ with no objective existence, but in addition, and most importantly, because its baleful influence constitutes a threat to the very existence of humanity.” When we are ignorant of the power of language and never think to question its use, we become complicit in the damage it causes and the negative impact on the lives it affects. Yet, if we look close enough, we will find it in plain sight.
All one has to do to understand the confusion presented by the U.S. Government and the Census Bureau is to look at the 2020 Census form for identifying race.
We have been told time and again that race is a social construct, an invention, and a myth. The Gnome Project results indicated that race does not exist since all human beings are 99.09% alike. So why does the Census Bureau continue to use an invalid and confusing term? The primary reasons, one might assume, are to maintain, protect, and promote the false concept of European (white) supremacy. The simple scientific fact is that all human beings belong to one species—Homo sapiens. The concept of European supremacy uses the word race to signify a sub species. Since the myth claim Europeans as representative of the species, all other peoples would be viewed as inferior and identified as races.
In 1942, an American scientists and scholar, Ashley Montagu, published a book entitled Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race where he warned America of the dangers involved in using the word race that suggests biological differences among human beings. He later suggested that the words ethnicity and ethnic group be used instead of the word race. He was ignored in part because the U.S. Census Bureau began using the word ethnicity to refer to both race and culture. Using the word race to indicate biological differences along with the colors black and white, the concept of identity became chaotic because no definition was ever offered for race, black, and white.
Adding to the confusion of identity, the Census Bureau allows individuals to choose the race to which they belong. What is lost in the confusion is the fact that the nationality of some individuals is the same as their culture. For example, French, German, Cuban, Haitian, etc. The Census Bureau looks at the nationalities and assigns a color to the geographical areas as black or white. When we examine the Census form above, we notice that the countries in Europe and North Africa are listed as white and the other countries as black or by their cultural names. Why? Again, one can assume it is to continue the confusion and the protection of European supremacy.
The identity confusion fostered by the Census Bureau has contributed to a plethora of problems focusing on individuals not knowing who or what they are. For example, while the common element among Hispanic people is the language, the Census bureau allows some Spanish speakers to identify as white while others are considered as black. Also, those Hispanics that identity their heritage as Spanish ae viewed differently from those with Mexican heritage. Nonetheless, the confusion might help explain the information published about the man that killed the people in Allen, Texas.
In an USA Today article by Will Carless entitled: “The Allen shooter was Hispanic. He was also a white supremacist. What’s the allure?” the focus seems to be on a supposed irony concerning Mauricio Garcia, the shooter, his ethnicity and his identify with white supremacist rather than the killing of eight people and the wounding of ten others. Carless writes that “White supremacist groups in the United States are usually clear on supporting northern European white identity, and rejecting all others, including Latinos. So why would Garcia, who identified as Hispanic, follow a philosophy that would consider his own identity inferior.”
Since the Census Bureau allows individuals to select their own race and ethnicity, Hispanics and Latinos get to choose whether they wany to be white or not. Many Hispanics identify with their European heritage from Spain, which places them in the Census Bureau’s category of white. Carless notes That “While Garcia’s specific family history has not been publicly detailed, the reality is that strains of white supremacy run through many different cultures. White supremacist sects exist across Latin America, a reflection of the complex nature of ‘whiteness’ in the Western Hemisphere.”
One obvious fact that continues to stand out is that the Census Bureau is at fault for not clearing up the matter of race. UNESCO in 1950 published a statement that race should no longer be considered an acceptable term relative to human beings. Again in 2001, it issued another statement on race: Science – modern genetics in particular – has constantly affirmed the unity of the human species and denied that the notion of `race’ has any foundation. In the words of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, `the human genome underlies the fundamental unity of all members of the human family, as well as the recognition of their inherent dignity and diversity’.
Despite the continuous warnings and cautions about using the word race, the U.S. Government, the U.S. Census Bureau, and America in general, persist in using the pseudo-scientific word race. The primary reason for doing so is the retaining and promoting of the European supremacy myth. The fact that many individuals become involved in trying to find an identity based on their confusion of ethnicity, race, and nationality is no surprise. Once an identity is found a sense of tribalism can quickly follow and become a focus for the individual. Edward O. Wilson noted that “People must have a tribe. It gives them a name in addition to their own and social meaning in a chaotic world. It makes the environment less disorienting and dangerous.” However, if the individual feels his tribal environment is threatened or in some kind of danger, then he must protect it by any means necessary. Belonging to the tribe provides feelings of comfort, protection, security, and unity.
In answer to the question poised by Carless in his articles’ title: What’s the allure? The simple answer might just be the need to protect the tribe with which he identifies. The lengths to which an individual will go to protect the tribe defies logic and commons sense because neither are the individual’s immediate concern. A belief in the false concept of race and the myth of European supremacy can be found in the actions of Garcia. The government and society can help in addressing the problem of ethnic bias and ethnic bigotry by eliminating the word race and beginning using the two legitimate words—ethnicity and nationality. Neither word connotes a biological component.
What is the difference between the questions: What size shoe does the Tooth Fairy wear? And how do we fight racism? Regardless of the various arguments that can be made concerning the two questions one fact stands out above all others—the questions are both based on myths. The primary difference between the two questions is that the Tooth Fairy myth is accepted as a myth and treated in like manner, but the concepts of race and racism is recognized being based on a myth but treated as reality. Common knowledge concerning race and racism is that they are the results of social constructions—made up to serve a purpose. The primary purpose that race serves is to represent the concept of a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Science and history have told us from the invention of taxonomy and the development of DNA that no such subspecies exists. Yet, America and the Western World continue to promote and foster the false concept of race. If the only concern of the race myth is its acceptance, no major problem would exist, but the fact that it is viewed as reality and instructs behavior represents a huge challenge.
What has taken place in the Western World for over two-hundred and fifty years is a behavior and belief in the myth of race that views Europeans and European Americans as superior to all other peoples in the world. What is even more disheartening is the fact that despite over-whelming facts and evidence to the contrary, the belief and behavior continues. The term race does four things besides supporting European supremacy: unite, separate, discriminate, and manipulate all other people. Regardless of how the term is used relative to identity, these four characteristics exist. No serious attempt has been made to rectify this situation, so ethnic bigotry has been alive and well in America for over two-hundred-and fifty years and it will continue until the people realize that race and racism is not the problem, nor can they be destroyed.
The plethora of people that write on or about race and racism all make the same mistake that causes their efforts to go for naught. If one starts off with a flawed concept, regardless of the developments and inventions attributed to that concept, the results will be flawed. Various writers of books and articles attempt to make clear at the beginning of their work that race is considered a social construction—a statement that should disqualify its use. However, the works proceeds in employing the term race and many of its derivatives as if they were legitimate and acceptable. For example, when writers use the terms black and white for human groups identities, they commit two major errors: one, they associate a person’s ethic identity with a color complexion and two, they invent so-called racial groups as monoliths. Both errors should automatically be seen as disqualifiers because they have no scientific basis in fact.
The most important part of any work is the clear understanding of what is being addressed and that should begin with a definition of terms. Any confusion relative to the subject or topic will result in even more confusion. An interesting situation currently in America is the efforts of a number of states to outlaw the teaching of race and related subjects that might cause the children hurtful feelings. The problem with these laws is that they never define race. The word race is used as though the reader already knows the meaning, but that is a false assumption. If these laws were to be challenged in courts that required a clear definition of terms, the laws would be thrown out or Western History could not be taught.
Another problem that arises from the law preventing the teaching of race is the obvious one of identity. If race is not to be taught or used how will children that have been conditioned to view themselves as black or white, be identified? The terms black and white when used singly refers to a color, but if the intent is for the use as identity, then they represent adjectives that proceed race. In other words, black race, and white race. Some European American and African American families do not inform their children of their ethnic identities, so as society has conditioned then, they say black and white. Since this term refer to so-called races, how is the teacher supposed to manage this situation without getting into trouble with the law? When a term is not defined or meaning fixed, it invents unforeseen problems when made the principal focus of a law. An uncomplicated way to resolve the problem of race is to discontinue use of the word. However, that would cause even more problems because that would eliminate the privileges and power associated with the phrase “white race.”
What is disturbing relative to works that attempt to offer something of value concerning race and racism is that they do not realize that while they are trying to make an argument against race and racism, they are promoting the concepts as legitimate. What is missing from many works on race and racism is the understanding that before one can proceed to address the issues involving race, it must first be debunked. Once race has been debunked then one can proceed to show the inaccuracies and misinformation associated with it. Unfortunately, many writers continue to use the language of race and the references that support the myth as part of their research and studies. For example, notice the language in the following quote that continues to promote as factual research material:
Twenty years after Bonilla-Silva developed the analytic components of a structural race perspective and called for “comparative work on racialization in various societies,” U.S.-centric race theory continues to be mostly rooted in a U.S. focus. What is missing is a framework that explores race and racism as a modern global project that takes shape differently in diverse structural and ideological forms across all geographies but is based in global white supremacy.” (A Global Critical Race and Racism Framework: Racial Entanglements and Deep and Malleable Whiteness,” Michelle Christian, 2018, Sociology of Race and Ethnicity)
Why not forgo all the analysis and inventions relative to race when we know that it is a myth. Whatever came out of this study was flawed because what went into it was flawed. The problem is not race or racism; it is the belief in the myth.
Okay, the Tooth Fairy does not wear shoes, but the fight against race continues. Why?
In view of the recent incidents involving hate groups and people storming Congress wanting to take back their country based on their conception of America being and belonging to “white people,” now is an opportune time to try and clear the air of the myth and misinformation we have lived with for almost four centuries. Ask almost anyone to define race and their answer will probably include something like groups of people with common physical differences like skin color, facial features, hair texture, eye color and shape; their definition might also include some geographical areas like Africa, Japan, China, etc. None of these elements, however, define race; they merely describe what race might look like. In reality, race cannot be defined because it is not fixed. Unfortunately, many Americans have been living under the notion that races exist and America belongs to the white one. Now is the time to correct this misinformation.
History showed that the concept of a race began to evolve in the late 17th century by the Anglo-Saxons and expanded along with the beginning of European exploration and colonization. For many years the English had fostered the myth of their nation as being superior to all other nations, but the myth was ignored until Linnaeus gave them an idea based on his taxonomy classifications and the human species. To justify their myth of superiority and dominance over all other nations, the Anglo-Saxons claimed that their nation represented the Homo sapiens species and that all the other nations were represented as sub-species. In order to protect, promote, and perpetuate the myth, they invented the word race which does just that any time and anyway the word is used. That is, whenever the word race or any of its derivatives are used, the myth of Anglo-Saxon superiority is protected, promoted, and perpetuated. The references to the other nations as races indicated their inferiority was secondary to the myth because they are all viewed as sub-species.
The myth of the Anglo-Saxons being superior to all the other nations (called races) have been debunked many times, but persist because of the constant usage and protection. The myth does not question the Anglo-Saxons but focuses on the differences of the other groups and that is part of the problem. Why would anyone believe that one nation out of all the nations on the planet was singled out to represent an entire species? We have learned that “… DNA analyses have proved that all humans have much more in common, genetically, than they have differences. The genetic difference between any two humans is less than 1 percent.” We also learned that “… geographically widely separated populations vary from one another in only about 6 to 8 percent of their genes.”So, the need to continue using the word race does nothing but support the myth.
The word race and the myth it supports has been so much a part of our consciousness that we find it hard to replace. But replace it we must. The myth of one ethnic group being superior to all the other groups is akin to someone believing that chocolate milk comes from brown cows. Yet, we have people and organizations that want to fight and destroy race and racism when the myth offers nothing to fight or destroy. In order to debunk the chocolate milk myth one only has to milk a brown cow and see the color of milk that comes out. To stop race and racism, one must stop accepting and believing in them; that will replace them with facts and truth because they are simply concepts. The damage that has occurred because of the acceptance of and belief in race and racism is another matter.
America must do a better job of educating its citizens because the plethora of ignorance regarding the use of race and racism will continue to be a problem. Recently, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives made a statement that urged all non-white people to go back to their homes and leave America to its rightful white owners. One would have found these comments laughable had they not been offered seriously. The case seems to be that people believe in what they want to believe in and facts and truth be dammed. Nonetheless, the truth and the facts regarding race and racism must be made. The fact is that “Because of the overlapping of traits that bears no relationship to one another (such as skin colour and hair texture) and the inability of scientists to cluster peoples into discrete racial packages, modern researchers have concluded that the concept of race has no biological validity.” (Britannica/The Many Meanings of “Race”) More facts and evidence, scientific and historical, are available to support that conclusion.
As stated earlier, because race and racism are concepts they can be replaced with appropriate language that does not include race. For example, the phrase “human race” is inaccurate and should be the human species; the word races should be ethnic groups. Rather than using the word “racism”, the word bigotry better represents the experience. In addition to the word race protecting, promoting, and perpetuating itself, race and all of its derivatives when used cause four simultaneous actions to occur: unity, separation, discrimination, and control. These actions occur because race focuses only on sub-species and not the representative of the species, the Anglo-Saxons.
The primary mistake made by the many individuals and organizations in their efforts to address the problems caused by belief in race and racism is the use of these words. For example, one cannot define antiracism unless the concept of racism is acknowledged. We know that racism comes from a belief in race and that race is a social invention, not valid in any sense. So, why spend time talking about antiracism that cannot produce a positive outcome when by simply debunking the myth one can move closer to reality—the fact that we are one species. How can we love our neighbor as ourselves if we do no see ourselves in our neighbor? �������
The mob attack on the nation’s capital should not have come as a surprise to anyone who knows American history. Why? Because American history has from the beginning fostered the concept of America being an Anglo-Saxon, European American, white, only country. Other people living in America are here only by permission, even the Indians. If we were to follow American history from the arrival of Christopher Columbus, we would recognize the superior attitude exuded by him and the other Europeans towards the non-European people they encountered, especially the Indians.
When the pilgrims and Puritans arrived in the 1620s and 1630s not only did they bring with them the superiority attitude but also a religion that told them they could use their superiority to take by force whatever they believed their God wanted them to have. The history books pictured initially an America that was simply virgin territory with little evidence of civilization present. This description was accompanied by references to the native people as savages. One of the first things the Europeans built in America was fences, not relationships with the Indians.
To further the myth of America belonging to Anglo-Saxons, European Americans, whites, when we learn about President Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana Territory what we were not told is what Jefferson wanted to do with the land. He thought that he could kill two birds with one stone-the Indian problem and the slavery problem. He would force all Indians and African Americans into the new territory and have them fend for themselves, and hopefully, die out and thereby make the country all Anglo-Saxon, European American, white.
The myth of America belonging to the European Americans was underscored in society and the government through language and actions. The language invented, instituted, and promoted the concept of human sub-species by using the word race. Races were then divided into two groups, one black and one white with the white race given dominance, power, and privilege over all other races. The primary difference between the Anglo-Saxons, European Americans, and white and the so-called other races was that all the other races were considered sub-species and therefore inferior to the Anglo-Saxons.
The idea of European American (white) ownership of America has been consistent throughout history as indicated by the actions taken to preserve its superiority myth through the laws governing the behavior of its citizens relative to interpersonal relationships among ethnic groups. Although major efforts were taken to keep the superior and inferior concepts constantly in the citizen’s life and mind, the fights by African Americans to gain their full participation in American society has brought to the surface the hypocrisy of ethnic bigotry that undergirds much of the American psyche. Consequently, many European Americans feel threatened and a sense of loss of some of their power whenever non-European American citizens acquire elements of their rights and privileges.
Over the years, for example, since Reconstruction, when African Americans began to realize some of their liberties as free Americans, serious efforts were set in motion by bigots and their organizations to prevent any progress by African Americans in that regard. The preventive efforts included physical abuse, property destruction, and death to people of color simply because of the threat they represented to Anglo-Saxon loss of power. We must note that the government was complicit in supporting much of the adversity visited on the African Americans. Their complicity came in the form of segregation, discrimination, incarceration, and other social sanctions; these actions strengthened for the European Americans the concept of ownership and dominance in America.
When Barack Obama, an African American, was elected President of the United States of America, many European Americans felt as though a dagger had pierced their hearts; the bottom had fallen out. What were going to happen to them and their power and privileges? Their fears were alleviated by their congressional friends in high offices who promised that Obama would not be able to damage their objectives. The Congressional Republicans kept their promise and deprived America of the growth and success it could have acquired under Obama.
When Donald Trump was elected President the myth of Anglo-Saxon dominance and ownership of America was revitalized. The myth would no longer be hidden, but brought out in the open along with the far-right groups and organizations that supported and promoted it. The Americans who held fast to the myth were strengthened and emboldened by a President that represented and supported their views. The evidence of this new presence was reflected in the fact that Trump tried to undo every piece of presidential action made by Obama, and the reports from organizations like ADL, ACLU, NAACP, and the SPLC, among others relative to the growth of hate groups. A national division based on ethnic bigotry and liberal politics was encouraged and any attempt to strengthen democracy and diplomacy towards national unity was ignored and/or discouraged during the Trump reign. What happened?
When the people of the United States of America elected Biden and Harris to be the next president and vice president, they sent a strong and hard message to those proponents of the myth; America would keep its republic and its democratic form of government. That message was more frightening to those supporters of America belonging to European Americans (white) myth because now their leader and representative would no longer be in power. What was even more terrifying was that the country’s new leaders were promoters of national unity and one was an African American.
America and the world experienced the actions of a mob of frantic, frightened, and frustrated people whose worst fears were coming to fruition—they were not only losing their national source of power and support in the president and some members of Congress, but because of the rapid demographic changes in America, the value, power, and privilege of their identity. They realize that America is changing into something that will debunk the myth and neutralize their illusion of power. They will not go quietly away, but their public presence should become less acceptable in a society where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the right of all citizens. t
My youngest son entered the 7th grade in the early 1990’s and was excited about matriculation from grade school—he was moving up in the world. Approximately two weeks after the start of school he came home one afternoon in a very disgruntled mood, which was unusual for him. When I questioned him about his mood, he responded that his teacher had placed him in the low reading group. He knew that he did not belong in the low reading group, so his self-esteem was affected. I requested his teacher’s name and immediately called the school and requested a meeting with her. She agreed to meet with me and asked if she could invite a fellow teacher to join us. I informed her that she could invite anyone she wished included the school’s faculty.
Less than twenty minutes I arrived at the school and was conducted to the teacher’s classroom where I met her colleague. I explained my reason for wanting to meet with her and asked what criteria were used in determining the reading groups to which students were assigned. She indicated that two exams were given to students and based on their performance they were placed in groups that coincided with their scores. I asked to see my son’s test so I could see how he performed. After retrieving my son’s first test, the expression on her face changed to one of puzzlement. I asked what the problem was. She immediately exclaimed that based on his score he did not have to be placed in the low group. I asked if there was a quota for group size and she said no. I then asked to see the second test my son had taken. Again, the teacher’s expression changed and her face reddened somewhat. Showing me the test paper, she commented that my son should have easily been placed in the high group. She and her colleague had not checked the second test.
She agreed to immediately correct the situation and move my son to the appropriate group. I thanked her and asked that she contact me or my son’s mother regarding any concern with my son’s work. I mentioned to her that she challenged his self-esteem by placing him in the low reading groups because he knew he did not belong there. I mentioned that just before the start of school my son had saved his allowance money to purchase a book, Bo Known Bo, by Bo Jackson, and read it over the summer. She apologized and thanked me for calling attention to the matter.
What happened to my son was not an isolated event in schools across the nation. When desegregation came into being in the public school system, the primary change to occur was that students of color were permitted to attend school with predominantly European American students and teachers. Neither the curriculum nor the cultural biases changed. My son’s teacher, probably unknowingly, in her treatment of my son, practiced ethnic profiling, ethnic discrimination, and implicit bias. Cultural bias and social conditioning of European Americans happens normally, so the teachers never realized the consequence of their actions. Apparently, teacher preparation institutions do little to debunk the myth of Anglo-Saxon superiority that existed prior to and during desegregation and integration.
To the point, the teacher committed ethnic profiling simply by looking at my son and seeing that he was a child of color rather than just another one of her students. Just the sight of a student different from the majority of students would have affected the teacher’s psyche. Many studies have shown that the mere sight of a person of color can affect the emotional state of many European Americans. We know all too well that ethnic profiling continues to be a problem with law enforcement and the criminal justice system, so why not with educators.
Simply profiling my son as an ethnic American did not create a problem for my son, but discriminating against him by associating negative ethnic characteristics generally applied to African Americans caused him harm. She demeaned his value by automatically assuming he was should be in a low reading group; his test scores were of little concern to her. Some public beginning back in the 1980s instituted a system called tracking that placed students, according to their performance on tests, in groups ranging from low group to high group.
While this tracking system initially served a positive purpose, allowing students with needs to receive special individual attention, its negative elements quickly took over and created more problems. Rather than relying on test scores as the basis for group placement, many schools simply began placing African American students, low socio-economic European American students, and immigrant students in the low groups. The middle and upper groups were filled with predominantly European American students, and that arrangement created a two-tiered system-separate and unequal.
Consequently, my son’s teacher’s designating him for inclusion in the low reading group was an act of discrimination based on her biased and uninformed judgment of his abilities. Her judgment, if left intact, could have resulted in not only his loss of self-esteem but also a loss of initiative and desire for self-improvement.
Additionally, the fact that she placed him in the low reading group represented an act of implicit bias. Thinking that he should go to the low group is one, but placing him in that group helped her confirm her judgment. The consequences of the teacher’s actions beginning with my son’s profiling to his group placement could have had a detrimental effect on his entire life. Too many young lives have already been negatively affected.
Recounting this encounter is meant to underscore the possible experiences targeted and marginalized students face in a society and an educational system that does not value them on a par with the majority of students. If America is to be a society that values each individual then we must work vigorously together to replace the myth of European American supremacy and privilege.
(My son went on to graduate high school as a member of the National Honor Society and the school’s top musician. He also managed to earn university degrees including the doctorate—not too bad for a low group reader.) �Y�˪`�]%!
americasraceproblem
America's Race Problem 