Answer: ONE, the Human Race.
Heard that on the radio today, some talk show radio thing here in San Francisco as I was driving to Stanford. It was refreshing to hear someone (finally) say that IF we are to place blame for what went wrong in NO, we should be looking at the MAYOR of the flooded city - who, by the way, has 'abandoned' his post for now. There was a general plan for a category 4 hurricane and it did include evacuation of the poorest folks - no matter what colour they were. Of course we were shown a most horrifying photo of the hundreds of long buses that were to be used for that purpose STILL SITTING IN THEIR ORIGINAL CITY OF NEW ORLEANS PARKING LOT...flooded...apparently the Mayor didn't think he was gonna need them?? The photo was shown last night on FOX news - I think the photo was from the AP wire.
Sigh! I think the 'mayor' is out of a job now - or should be. I'm so sick of people blaming the President. It's ignorance. No, I didn't vote for Bush or run his cheerleading quad here in California, but before these people scream that the President didn't do 'his job' they should go back to the 11th grade and learn about their Government - and what's legal for the Cities, States vs. the Federal Government. Sheesh! It's not as clear cut as these critics are making it sound and it's always been that way. Always.
Anyhow, back to the 'races' of people and my tricky question of the day. Hearing that question on the radio today made me think about a PBS special about a researcher who traced the human DNA back to a tribe in some really REALLY remote village somewhere in Africa. It was an incredible journey with an interesting result - we all come from the same 'Adam' - or the same guy, basically, sometime a long time ago. The skin colours are scientifically related to the amount of sun (or distance from the Equator) a human being was exposed to over time. As tribes adjusted to life, they ventured OUT into the world (up North, mostly) and their skin tones were adjusted accordingly.
Skin colours, tones and some features may be different, but it's all the same in the beginning and the end. Now, I'm a Christian and believe in the Bible. I don't say that I totally understand or 'get' Genesis (and am not looking for a debate, by the way) but I never read that God created Man and then created a sub-par 'man' in a different colour. Sure, he shook things up for us at the Tower of Babel, but for some reason, for the most part, we as humans can deal with language barriers better than visual or colour barriers.
Enter Christ in the New Testament. NOWHERE in any of his teachings did this Jewish man say that racism was cool. Quite the contrary. I especially remember this "Love one another" - I don't read or see any hate or separation in that statement.
I pray that everyone may reach for the colourblind status in this world - and drop the race card. NOW.
2 comments:
While I agree with the general sentiment, I would disagree with the particulars.
Race isn't a genetic classification, but rather a sociological creation, based on a number of factors, skin tone being one of them, but also a number of other physical and cultural distinctions.
I'm not sure how realistic it is to try and be "colorblind" since these sorts of distinctions are fairly apparent, especially to more homogenous societies, and would be next to impossible to not notice. In addition to this, these sociological delineations are typically not uni-directional, but are held on both sides, i.e., not only do "we" see the other as distinct from "our" group, but they see themselves as being distinct as well. When both parties agree to the demarcation, there is little one could do to eliminate it.
Also, it may not even be desirable to eliminate it, since doing so would also have the tendency to eliminate the other more cultural characteristics that are included in these distinctions.
On the other hand, you can probably go ahead and simply ignore most of what I just said, since it is based a more classical use of race than how it is used today. Both uses are composites of culture and common physical traits, but they differ in which pole is greater emphasised.
...but, Issac, it was a good point you made! Nobody wants to give up their cultural characteristics - those things are something to identify a person as well as to be proud of where you're from.
I was thinking that it's really hard to find someone (in America anyway) who's JUST one category of person - like '100% Italian' or only made up of Mexican ancestry. In America, we're a bit of this, a dash of that - even me. I like to say that I'm French-Canadian, but I'm also a bunch of other things - including Alaskan Indian. My dad was adopted, so God only knows what else I'm made up of!
It saddens me that there are people out there that see two different people (skin colour, facial features, disabilities, whatever) and still can make a judgement call as to which one is 'more worthy' of help, human compassion or love.
Let's say that I still pray that new generations of people reach for colourblind status - especially with strangers. That's what I'm trying to teach my son - and I think it's working so far.
Thanks, Issac, for your great comment today!
Post a Comment