On Tuesday, we concluded with a discussion of race in the context of the class compared to our peers’ identification of the term. Each philosopher has helped to mold our perspective and advance our ideas on the term. Ashley Montagu’s took an extremist approach. He suggested that the word “race” be terminated from our use. He supports his argument with the claim of the word being artificial, disagreeing with the facts such as genetics, and it develops into a word of confusion and erroneous subtext. Similarly in our class discussion, we agreed with Montagu to an extent and restated that there is no race gene. Yet, there was debate whether the term could be dropped from our vocabulary. There was a common agreement that “race” has derived meaning from a historical context, and therefore we cannot erase the appearance of it throughout our past.
W. E. B Du Bois agrees in his article The Conservation of Race. Du Bois guides his perspective by defining race as “a vast family of human beings, generally of common blood and language, always of common history, traditions and impulses, who are both voluntarily and involuntarily striving together for the accomplishment of certain more or less vividly conceived ideals of life. (110)” The term has developed meaning through time and “we cannot not reverse history. (112)” He even furthers his argument by suggesting that a race differences should not be discarded by the people. This could lead to even more confusion and races, such as the Negroes, should not be absorbed into the society in which they live. Rather, the “races” should band together to create organizations for themselves, embracing their pride and differences to “positively advance. (114)”
Although the idea sounds nice, Du Bois discards the racial justifications to allow one to be in the organization. He supposes that one is either white or black. Yet throughout the American society, it has been more and more obvious this is not the case. To create organizations for “race” groups would only further the complexity of the term, and cause more friction amongst the groups. Man, especially groups of men, thrives off competition and there will always be the urge to fight. This would essentially create a racial hierarchy, and more division among the people. The countries would begin to divide in struggle for their own territory. Then, people would have to define themselves according to the context to which they belong. This can be confusing for people that don’t carry the similar characteristics as their “race. “ Montagu states its best that one cannot rely on a term that is artificial, counters factual knowledge, and has no solid boundaries creating confusion. To create racial organizations would only further the friction amongst people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with both of the points in this post regarding Montagu and Dubois. It is entirely correct that it is virtually impossible to destroy the word "race" from our vocabulary. However, it is upsetting to know that we rely on such an undefined and artificial term to cause separations between us.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Du Bois would ardently disagree that his ideas about race, inevitably create racial hierarchies, and that only one race's ideal can fully flourish at a given point in time. From reading this article, and also reading some of his book "The Souls of Black Folk", Du Bois definitely thinks different national/racial ideals can come together and work in context with one another within the same geographical setting, and I think he conceives the concert of multiple separate ideals as superior to the dominance of just one, although exactly why is tough to cash out, aside from the sheer offensiveness of brutally surpressing other people.
ReplyDeleteI think Du Bois is operating from a different conception of integration than most of us typically do--particularly white Americans, namely that we should try to forge a color-blind society. Rather, I think he sees integration not as ultimately eradicating cultural racial differences but rather celebrating them. Basically, then the goal of integration is really equality and allowing for the confluence of these unique, but distinct voices about humanity. To me, this is reminisient of one strand of feminism that advocates that we shouldn't say there is absolutely no difference between the sexes and that the two are really the same, but rather that they offer different voices on the human condition and our experience which should be heard.
Is this idea an inferior or superior position to the common notion that the end goal of abolishing racism is to create a literally 'colorless' society? I'm not sure. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
I think the idea that we can create a "colorless" society is impossible as long as people have different skin colors. It is part of human nature to categorize things and as long as there are differences in people we will notice this and try to place them into groups. I dont think there is any problem with this, the problem arises when we begin to assign negative attributes to these groups and stereotype each individual in those groups.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of a "colorless" society confuses me because when someone looks at a person one of the first things that anyone notices is that person's skin color with other physical attributes as well. Anyone's skin color is a large part of a person's identity and wanting to ignore that is not necessarily going eliminate the concept of modern racism. And supposing that a "colorless" society was achieved, society would just find religion or different aspects of other's culture as a basis of discrimination. Therefore, something else will always be the basis for seperation if not color.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the ideal of the "colorless society," as I understand it, is not that people won't literally see skin color, but that skin color will basically be as irrelevant to interpersonal relations as eye color is.
ReplyDeleteNow, honestly a fool would think many people have gotten to this point right now. But, ultimately, the hope is that in 20, 50, 100 years (however long it takes) this state of affairs will happen , at least in America, although the more countries the better.
Your probably right, Manali, that some sort of discrimination will serve as a basis for separation, even if skin color comes not to function this way. But I'd block any strong pessimistic move from that. Stopping the inquistion or ending Jim Crow may not have brought about the end to discrimination in general, but those changes happening definitely did tangibly improve the quality of those discriminated peoples lives.
And let's be real if somehow we did total abolish racial categories having any negative connotations, a lot of peoples lives, and their children's lives, would be improved for the better. Now, might something say religion still be a hot button discrimination issue? Yes, but there is nothing inherent in ending racial discrimination that entails discrimination must grow elsewhere in order to totally cancel it out.
It seems to me that DuBois is way off with the idea of racial organizations for exactly the reasons Courtney pointed out: the difficulty for many to locate within themselves a single, specific racial identity and because of the racial hierarchy to which it would later, inevitably lead. DuBois may think that different racial groups can cohabit a geographic region, but history shows us time and time again, one group, the group with institutionalized power (perhaps whatever group was there first, or whatever group is holding government positions) will place upon itself special rights which it withholds from the other. This seems to occur naturally whenever two groups of differing morphologies and cultures cohabit a space. When these differences serve as the basis for organizations, however, this process of differentiation is augmented, as there is only a limited amount of power to be wielded, and a level of competition between the racial organizations for this power will inevitably occur. Given that eventually one group will find an advantage over the other in terms of power, and given also the definite human tenancy towards nepotism, it is easy to see how these differences can quickly cascade into complete power for one organization and complete lack of power for the other. The fact of racial and cultural pride and the principle that when two groups are defined, they will naturally tend to compete for power and resources are reasons enough not to want to further the racial separation, especially not in an institutionalized way, as it will lead to either absolute domination or absolute subjugation, both powerless to advance the interests of humanity, and only exist to either further their own needs, or throw off the chains of oppression. This system does not lead to racial cooperation which is what will eventually free us of racial distinction, but institutionalizes the differences, delaying the far off human epiphany that there is no ideological basis for race, but only a practical one based on domination and power.
ReplyDeleteI like this post as it makes me think back to this particular class in which we discussed whether or not we could get rid of the term race. While ridding the term from our vocabulary sounds ideal, I believe the term race cannot be taken away from society as it is too powerful of a word. Initially, I thought that this was a sad thing, but at the same time not all associations with race are seen negatively. Many identify with their race and feel empowered by it. I realize that there are many negative associations with the term, hence why this term is up for discussion, but i feel that while there are negative associations with the term "race," there are also associations in which those of the particular race relate to and are proud of. So to deny the race of their distinctions might not necessarily be as beneficial as Ashley Montagu hoped for it to be.
ReplyDelete