It seems that maybe there is a fusion of sorts, that race is a social construct that has identified itself in physical characteristics. The idea of racism, the act of racism, has been carried out, throughout history, on the basis of physical characteristics. There were prejudices against a color, not necessarily a race or the social characterization of race. If a white woman acts black she is not black, she is still white, but on the inside she identifies with black culture. If the same woman acts like a man, she is still a woman, but she identifies with masculine culture. She is masculine, displays masculine tendencies, and is as much a man on the inside as she remains a woman on the outside. The same remains true for the former instance; she is black, displays black tendencies, and is as much an African American on the inside as she is white on the outside. So who is she really? Well it seems that if she had been on say the titanic she still would have been saved with the children and not left for the waters with the men. So that means that we judge, in some situations, a person by their physical characteristics. So it seems that maybe the fault lies with our current and past characterizations of people, we judge the metaphorical book by the cover and leave little worry for the inside. When slavery was in practice, whites brainwashed each other into never thinking about what they may have in common underneath the skin. Only into looking at he skin and believing what others told them about other's insides. Let's take a look back at the woman, now lets pretend that she is a mix race and that her mother is African-American, and her father Caucasian. Now, although she still looks white she is half black. No try the same thought process (acting black or man), is she more black now? It seems at first that she is, is this another instance of physiological necessity for race. Perhaps it is heritage. It seems that a black, white, Asian, or Latino child, brought up in a family of a different race would identify with his family's respective race. Perhaps it is who, as a human, you identify with that gives you a sense of belonging. Some people identify with people of another color, many other colors, or people of the some color, the problem only arises when some identify with people of the same color because they do not understand how to look past color, towards the thousands of similarities that we all share. It is this mis-step that leads to racism, the idea that we cannot find heritage in people of all colors. It is because they never see that we all share a piece of this same pie, called humanity.
Also, I have heard rumors that some of you think I am a communist because I want media control from the govt. (yes the Rhodes rumor mill is crazy like that) Well that is pretty far from my real ideology but I can see the possible presumptions. Let me clear that up with this: I want media to be regulated by us, by the Internet, and/or by peer review. Why not have top economist, philosophers, writers, and all the other PhD's of the world researching and telling the news. I want peer reviewed news, not slanderous money making crap. I want to know that what those news stations are representing as the truth is nothing but just that. I want peace of mind, that the information that uneducated America relies upon (for things like voting) is not pure bullshit. I want freedom of speech, but I want to be free not to be lied to as well. Something like I am free to say whatever I would like so long as I am not lying or misrepresenting the truth for an end not worthy of the means.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your thoughts on the outside vs. the inside. Although, I would pose a question to you. If a woman felt she was a man inside, would she not manifest this outside? In other words, would she not butch up and attempt to realize her manliness? I'm thinking about a Mulan character or other fighting women in history that lived out the life of the other sex in public. Even if they do not fully look masculine, they demand the right to fight beside them and deny their femininity. Then in that role, would we not leave them for the icy waters?
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your media ideas, "top economist, philosophers, writers, and all the other PhD's of the world" do have the opportunity to broadcast their news, just as everyone else; however, it is the choice of the consumer that decides what sells. Thus the "slanderous money making crap" is what they broadcast because that's what the people want. Perhaps instead of censoring the news to uplift the public, you should uplift the public so that they demand better news.
Your point about the woman who feels that she/he is a male, reminded me of that sensationalist headline "World's First Pregnant Male" (which I'll point out, biologically speaking is entirely incorrect, but gender identity wise may be correct [I actually think there probably has already been a biological woman who identifies herself as a male who has gotten pregnant.) Thats an ironic segway to your point about the media, since I never noticed any major news outlets pointing out this distinction, only bringing it up to spice up an otherwise dull news cycle.
ReplyDeleteThere are numerous shortcomings for free market oriented news--the vast growth of shoddy commentary programs being one; simplistic headlines being another. I don't see, however, a much better feasible alternative. Maybe government funded independent news like the BBC, but I'm skeptical that even that would meet the high requirements I think you have in mind--especially given that 'truth' is highly contentious on so many important stories, for instance, War in Iraq, global warming, fixing social security, how to decrease crime in city X, or the best way to fix the city school system.
Anyway, I agree with Ian's point on the Titantic. I think a lot more is going into that decision (to let the women on the lifeboats first) than just physical features, namely morality, cultural attitudes/duties, and paternalism.
There is no us when it comes to censorship.
ReplyDeletewhat do you mean here alex?
ReplyDelete