The American condition is an endless war of heterogeneity, the battles of which take place wherever the races and ethnic groups mix and mingle. There are many fronts, many different warring factions, many alliances, and many different weapons used in this war. Our institutions, when effective, manage to muzzle the roar of war, but the sheer existence of many of them, affirmative action being the first example to come to mind, evidences the fact that the war wages on. This war has the same types of participants as conventional wars:
The fractious and divisive leaders: your Rush Limbaughs and Al Sharptons
The Diplomats: Those who work to advance race and ethnic relations... to end the war.
The Protesters: your me's, and anyone else challenging the validity of the "enemy" lines that the war's leaders fight to advance.
The warriors: your typical citizen who has chosen to identify solidly within the confines of one conventional American ethnic identification category.
As the great American "melting pot" heats up, we are compelled more and more to avoid conflict by thinking more thoroughly before we speak. Who can say what?: a fundamental and very American question that must be asked repeatedly during hetergenious social interaction. Adding a third dimension to this question, depth if you will, are any or all of the following ammendments: when, to whom, and how? This post seeks to foster discussion about the 4th, oft-challenged dimension: why can one say something sometimes, to some people, and in some ways, while others can not?
See the following Link: http://digg.com/d1nwrL
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
lol at "your me's."
ReplyDeleteWhen trying to understand why some people can say certain things, and others can not, for fear of appearing disrespectful, one must recognize that people bring a lot more than their personality and resume to the proverbial table. Regardless of some one's best intentions, good deeds, etc, they brings at least two layers that speak just as loud, if not louder than their actual words.
One layer is your physical appearance: olive or florid, slim or obese, young or matured, sloppy or well-groomed, handicapped or able, universally attractive or decidedly tough on the eyes. The second layer, which isn't always visible, is your background/history which includes whether you're foreign or domestic, what your ancestors did or didn't do, your socioeconomic status, your title and stature, where you attended college (if you did at all). Often the second layer is assumed based on some of the details of the first. (I.e. one may assume a White middle aged, well-dressed male is a college-educated upper middle class executive.)
For example, my company just recently announced layoffs, pay cuts, and building closures. At the all staff meeting to address concerns, a senior executive whose job is probably more secure than 90% of the staff's, urged us to all "chin up... we'll get through this... this too shall pass." Many, if not most of the staff, felt her comments were at best impolite considering her position. A perfect example of a relatively positive message coming from the wrong person.
Consider another example. The Color of Change, a liberal group who claims to "change the color of democracy" applauded Senator Jim Webb, a White Senator of the Southern State of Virginia for "boldly calling out the over-imprisonment of Black folks." He was applauded not for his statement, because Al Sharpton mentions it all the time; but because his two layers makes it a somewhat surprising statement coming from him.
Consider those two layers and it will shed a light of on who can say what and why.
i feel like we're a country of competing homogeneities...
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not missing the mark on things here, I think the difficulty in transforming from a homogeneous society to a heterogeneous one lies in preserving ones identity, as opposed to being an ingredient in the proverbial "melting pot." While many don't mind being a part of the melting pot, they at the same time would like to preserve their heritage, culture, and ancestry etc (my point is focused more on the ethnic/religious connotation of the melting pot). As a result, certain things are left in the realm of " the 4th dimension" as you put it. If anyone can say what they want, and to whoever they want, a person's inherited individuality may erode. Meaning that, if an American can call me a Paki without any reluctance, and I don't mind at all, than slowly that word will have no meaning. Furthermore, the identity associated with that word will begin to erode in the collective conscious. A stretch, maybe? For instance, the example given above about the lady who announced the layoffs and cheekily included that "we" will get through this didn't get a good response. Firstly, probably because she is full of shit. Secondly, because those members of the staff feel like they are members of a "community" with shared life experiences and problems etc. Her including herself in that didn't bide well because she inserted herself into a group where she doesn't share their experiences. Similarly, if an American calls me a Paki it may be offensive, whereas a Pakistani saying it wouldn't be offensive, because we have a shared experience. I think a certain amount of heterogeneity is a natural human instinct to help maintain a community of shared experiences, and identity. Maybe people want to be tolerant in the melting pot, but don't want the melting pot to become a stew of indistinguishable ingredients. A paradox in a way. Did I miss the point of the discussion? Hope not. ahahahahahha
ReplyDeleteI like your point about shared experiences and not wanting to become indistinguishable ingredients, Shaheryar. Very true!
ReplyDeleteIt's funny, at my church, which is predominantly African-American, people often say, "I wish [different races] could all go to church together." And I'm cool with that, but a large part of why I appreciate my church service is the African-American traditions attached to it, from the style of singing the choir employs to the style of the preaching. I don't want to lose that in a quest to be a part of a melting pot! Maybe a better example is Thai food. In Thai food, you get so many awesome flavors, sweet, salty, tangy, sour, but none of them are compromised or dominated by the others (in good Thai food anyway). Let's be Thai and not a melting pot! (Corny, I know!)