 |
| "Che Guevara" by Andy Warhol, (1968)This artwork may be protected by copyright. It is posted on the site in accordance with fair use principles |
Do you know any virtuous people who have racist attitudes?
Do you think these attitudes can rightfully be described as "categorization" errors associated with "incomplete data" (152) and reinforced by "a culture that embodies negative stereotypes" about certain groups (156)?
What do you think motivates someone with racist attitudes to abandon those attitudes?
Sadly, we're getting shown only a section of the story, at least with Che. I'm not as familiar with the lives of Gandhi or Lincoln as I am with Che, but I can imagine the same thing happening. Che Guevara is usually painted as a bloodthirsty murderer in the West, and it's just not right. It really irked me that Mlodinow, after quoting the three, moved on to the idea that we can train our brain to fight back against our automatic categorization which causes skewed and prejudice views. That is, without mentioning that at least one of these men did just that; over coming his prejudice of Africans above any standard: Che.
ReplyDeleteChe wrote the passage in the book and others like it in his diary, but these passages were written when he was in his early twenties and upon only one encounter of the race. In his later years, he confessed that he was a changed man – we can all count back to beliefs we had when we were young that were “wrong”. The man went on to fight with an all black army and fought vigorously for racially intergraded schools in Cuba – way before they were in the United States. Che provided much support for Africans against inequality, injustice and racism in general.
To show you just how much the man changed, think about this quote from Che in contrast to the one in the book:
“Those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the color of their skin; those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them, and furthermore punishing the black population because they demand their legitimate rights as free men – how can those who do this consider themselves guardians of freedom?”
I don't think it's possible at this point in time to change my belief of racism. My focus, love and passion, lies with only one group – the human species. The idea of race was developed by colonialist for justification, and that's just what race is – a creation of human ignorance. There is no such thing as different races, only different populations.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteWhy these attitudes exist and their cause is a highly complex issue, and a whole area of study spanning multiple fields of science. There's no way we can go through it all in this manner, but I do think “categorization errors” and “a culture that embodies negative stereotypes” have something do with it.
It's true that our categorization tool more often than not kicks in too soon, i.e. before we have adequate data. As Mlodinow points out, this is an evolutionary tactic used to better enable us to survive. Because we've only live in what could be called a society for such a short time in our species' history, our evolutionary traits still have a notable influence on our thoughts and actions – including this categorization mechanism. So, just as with Che, we sometimes base an entire segment of people and/or objects off of the few we've interacted with.
These attitudes are definitely reinforced by our culture, especially in the media. A great example is the muslim people. Just about the only time you see an Arab or muslim on television it's in the news, usually regarding terrorism. Because of this, which was reinforced majorly by President Bush Jr. and his media puppets, a lot of people have an irrational fear of muslims. When in reality, they're some of the nicest people you will ever have the privilege of meeting – extremist aside.
There's a couple of more theories in sociology that I can remember off hand. One is frustration theory, which states that groups in, particularly economically driven, competition tend to look down on each other through frustration, bringing about hatred. Another, and I think a massive culprit, is the theory that prejudice is learned from family and other significant people in our lives, i.e. we tend to believe what the people around us do.
I think there are a number of ways someone with racist attitudes can abandon such attitudes. A big one, and I think the most reliable, is simply though experience and awareness. One needs to experience people and culture beyond their own – with enough time and interaction, I think these tend to fade.
I argue that racism and prejudice alike are coming to an end, through the natural progression of the human race. One absolutely essential tool that's bringing this about is the Internet. Before, all you had to base your beliefs off of the media, text, and those around you. Now, with the greatness of the Internet, we have the accessibility to information never before seen, a tool that would have you burned alive for being a witch in the not-so-distant past. The Internet has helped us become more civilized. From sitting at home we can talk to someone in another part of the country or world and learn through them – instead of taking all knowledge from a textbook or media – about their culture, ways of life and traditions. This opens eyes. You begin to see that we're all the same; we're all just people. We all have the same problems, all have to sleep at night and eat when we wake, all put on our clothes the same way, etc.
I have to disagree with this question. The idea of a "virtuous" person or a "racist" person is, at its very base, a product of the same thinking that created racism or any other prejudice: that a specific quality can define a person. The question is meant to put the two at odds: "Do you know any people who are good, despite this one awful characteristic?" People who judge others based on race are using fallacious logic. This is something we know to be true, because studies show that race has no effect on any qualities a person can or cannot have, unless they have to do with specific genetic tendencies, like a predisposition toward diabetes being common in the Native American genetic makeup. However, this fallacy is all they are guilty of. A prejudiced person can as easily be loving, dependable, honest, loyal, and courageous as a person who has no judgmental bones in their body. Prejudice is not, in fact, the antidote to being a good person--and among the types of prejudice, racism is not special or somehow more evil than others. Prejudice based on socioeconomic status, gender, or religion is just as wrong and potentially damaging--and yet, being prejudiced does not equate with being non-virtuous. Further, people tend to use their lack of prejudice as a kind of moral armor. They feel they are allowed to look down on people who have prejudice, because they themselves do not; this is as common a fallacy as direct prejudice itself. In fact, labeling someone as prejudiced or non-prejudiced, virtuous or non-virtuous, is just perpetuating the same kind of thinking that we are trying to get away from: reducing a living, multifaceted person to a single quality, which we can then judge.
ReplyDelete--Hinton