Response to Chloe's Post

Hi Everyone,

This was intended as a comment on Chloe's post but it grew too long. Thus, I'm submitting it as a post instead of a comment.

_____________

Chloe, thank you for continuing this very interesting discussion. You make a number of interesting points in your post, but I have to say that I still disagree with you.

I think that you are forgetting that colonies are always established and maintained with military power. Every colonial effort in history has utilized overwhelming military force in order to maintain its essentially unjust system. In every colony there is a large number of soldiers whose "job" is to maintain the status quo and keep the colony running as the mother country likes. Thus, your argument that American soldiers are soldiers and not colonizers is not logically consistent. Granted, being a soldier in a foreign country does not necessarily make you a colonizer, but it certainly does not make you necessarily not a colonizer. There is absolutely nothing about belonging to the classification "soldier" which precludes one from also belonging to the classification "colonizer."

Memmi does indeed define the colony as a place where "one earns more and spends less," and I will grant you that our soldiers do not benefit nearly as much or as unfairly as colonizing militaries have in the past. Unlike most historical colonial militaries, our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot participate in pillage and rape with impunity (although situations like what occurred at Abu Ghraib certainly happen more than we realize - no military can occupy a foreign country without somehow abusing the population, and to deny this is to naively ignore the inevitable fact of what happens when thousands of armed men and women are thrown into a situation of extreme power, danger, and stress). Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the great financial gains that companies like Halliburton or private military contractors have received because of our wars. And our desire for oil is almost too obvious for me to mention. If we really were after "liberating" and assisting foreign peoples instead of simply furthering our national interests (of which having a secure supply of oil is an integral component), we should have spent those hundreds of billions of dollars on stopping genocide in Sudan and fighting HIV/AIDS throughout Africa. No matter how you look at it, many American corporations are benefiting monetarily from our wars; and, incidentally, Memmi himself points out that it is always the richest members of a society who benefit most from colonization.

Furthermore, you can call it "liberation" if you want - Saddam really was a horrible dictator - but the fact of the matter is that we ARE imposing our political ideology on the Iraqi people. I'm sure many of them hated Saddam and wanted him overthrown, so by deposing Saddam we were indeed fulfilling the wishes of many Iraqis. But that does not at all mean that they want democracy! Overthrowing Saddam and creating a democracy are two entirely different things and are in no way necessarily related. We have mandated that the Iraqi people form a democratic government with democratic social and legal institutions. Do you think that we would ever let them not form a democracy? Granted, I haven't the faintest idea what it is that the Iraqi people "want", and I don't think that I'm a minority in that. We have been told over and over again that they want a democracy, but we have to be skeptical of such a claim because it is an oversimplification of the dynamics of incredibly complicated society and, more importantly, it is the exporters of democracy, i.e. our government, who are the ones telling us this.

You are certainly correct in saying that Iraq and Afghanistan are not colonies as Memmi defines them, because there are a number of large differences. Nevertheless, we should keep in mind that Memmi wrote his book over fifty years ago and since then that breed of colonialism has died. It would be impossible to practice 19th and 20th century colonialism in the 21st century because it would (hopefully) be instantly recognized and stopped. Humans have always invented, and will always continue to invent, new ways of oppressing others for their personal benefit and we are only beginning to see what form this will take in the 21st century. We should remember that in the early nineteen hundreds there were many French who defended their occupation of Tunisia, Algeria, and other African colonies as far different from the backwards and inhumane colonization of the 18th and 19th centuries...

Do You Only Love the Idea of It?

In Thursday’s class we discussed negritude and its essentialist views. Black people are emotional, creative, and intuitive. These qualities were for Aime Cesaire the essence of the black race. This also connected us to similar ideas that are still held today and are manifested on reality television shows like the Bad Girls Club and College Hill. These shows usually do include black females who are aggressive, antagonistic, loud, and proud. Usually they will also be overly sexualized. The black males also may be praised based on their sexual prowess, cool demeanor, or aggressive behavior. Such distinctions concerning the African American character manage to reach the majority of black people today. I feel that these depictions manage to convince our young people that this is how they should act if they are African American or that this is acceptable behavior. I did encounter such behavior often at my high school. It is as if adolescents are especially susceptible to the idea that they, as black people, should display the “essential” qualities of their character at every given opportunity by “being black” and proud of their African American heritage. This tendency for such high school students to desire to “display their blackness” in their heritage is usually accompanied by a nearly complete lack of knowledge or interest in their African American background and history. This is very much of interest of me when considering that the types of behavior perpetuated by this idea usually accompanies a sense of pride and confidence in themselves due to their African American heritage. There were also various jokes falling in line with the essentialist idea concerning the inherent qualities of the black or white soul. For example, a younger black student may have encountered a social situation where, during a conversation with other African American students, they may not have known about a particular fact, person, or situation, that it was considered common knowledge for them to know about within the black community. For instance he or she may not have heard a particular song that had been heavily in circulation for a while so they would then “jokingly” threaten to take away the individual’s “black card” thus putting forth the idea that being African American involves a membership package that apparently includes a card, accompanying characteristics, and a knowledge of all things “black” in pop culture. It seems that some African Americans treasure the idea of being black instead of the actual heritage and history that accompanies the sense of pride in indentifying with that group. I feel that such knowledge and awareness should accompany a person’s link to any cultural group.

The Soldier's Place

In class, after the Memmi Group Presentation, the discussion of the place of Memmi's argument in the Iraq situation at this moment came up. I would like to perhaps pretense this post by saying that I would like to compare the design of Memmi's argument to the complex role of the Soldier in today's society. Perhaps then, we can discuss how different and complex the roles of soldiers are from the roles of a colonizer.

First, Memmi defines the colonizer as an individual that moves to a new land to attain an easier life and gain personal profit. By gaining economic gain, the colonizer automatically has inevitable privilege which lets the colonizer throw out laws and rules with no remorse. Also the colonizer will take the natives belongings and be a usurper with little to no regard to the natives. Second, another point that Memmi brings up is that there can be a colonizer who refuses but they will only have two choices when they refuse to take part in the colonizing. The colonizer that refuses can either stay in the colony and accept their privileged position or they can leave the colony and not be a part of it at all. Also, we discussed in class how the colonizer is often, if not always, pushing the ideology of the natives out so that they can become the ideological majority. This would include religion, politics, and other cultural aspects. Also, keep in mind that an overarching theme is that the colonizer is finding a NEW HOME in the land that they are colonizing.

Now lets look at the U.S. military in Iraq. I would like to state that first and foremost the U.S. soldier's position is a job and within that job there are, like all other jobs, duties that are not up for question. Also, by having a job as a U.S. soldier it must be respected that if you were not to follow your duty the consequences are arguable far worse than most jobs. First, unlike the colonizer Memmi describes that moves to a new land to attain an easier life and gain personal profit is not like a soldier. A soldier has no goal of attaining an easier life in Iraq or living there for their lifetime. Also, a soldier does not gain personal profit from being over there. While granted a soldier does gain more profit being deployed than being stationed at home (e.g. on U.S. soil) it is not specific to Iraq. Soldiers deployed anywhere are more profitable economically, yet it must be realized that this is because they cannot benefit their dependents physical. Also, under the prime directives of the U.S. military, the military units that are serving active duty are not allowed to impose on the laws, cultures, and national pride of the natives. While some would argue that by with stating the Hussein government the U.S. military was imposing on the laws and political institutions Iraq, UN and international law states that in a corrupt government outside forcing are not imposing on nations if they are liberating the nation's people; which is what the U.S. military did in the end by forcing Saddam Hussein's government out of office. Also, while some may argue that the US military has privilege and power over the natives I must say that this is not true. In fact, the only place this argument has plausibility for would be the green zone. This is the only land where the U.S. military has jurisdiction for their people and their operations. Yet, before you jump to saying this is a colonized zone I would ask you to look at the embassies that are scattered across the nations of the world that technically belong to other nations.
Continuing, Memmi states that the Colonizer that refuses has two options, to leave or stay and deal basically. Soldiers do NOT have a choice like this. This lack of choice goes back to the duties of the job and the consequences of not doing these duties. If a soldier were to refuse active duty because "oh well I don't really agree with the pretenses for going to Iraq" he would most likely be charged with treason, dishonorably dismissed, tried in a military court, and sentenced for basically "not following the norm". While you may say well he still has a choice. Unlike the colonizer who could remain in the motherland and still have a life and livelihood and profit, a soldier does not have a choice to remain at home and retain that life, livelihood, or profit because all of those ride on the soldier completing his or her job.

My last point I would like to make is that a colonizer would go to the new land and establish a new HOME! A soldier, no matter where they are deployed to, and in this case Iraq, are going there for an extended yet limited period of time. They are taking no livelihood, no family, no personal items beside those that can fit in the standard military issued backpack and duffle after the required items are packed. The few morals and values that they are allowed to bring and practice they cannot pass on to create a more comfortable home-like environment. To sum it up, our Soldiers do NOT call Iraq HOME!

The Practicality of Colonizer being Colonized

I would like to know, is it the case that a white, democratic male colonizer is eternally bound to his superior position in society, despite his mindset AND despitehis actions? It seems a bit ridiculous to me, that "it is not just enough to refuse in your mind" according to Memmi. If that was the case, then wouldn't it also be the case that the Moral Hero would never have acquired the title "hero"? This can be related to the Civil Rights Era as well. There was a number of white males that looked past their own forced superiority and considered themselves to be no more privileged than the Black people (renounce colonial privilege). These men took on the ways of the deprived peoples and marched with them (overcome feelings of alienation), while at the same time adopting their governmental practices and oppressions (resolve his inherent political dilemma). Those men, despite their whiteness, loved the Black people, which is why they fought for their rights, and, in turn, I feel like Black Americans accepted them...truly accepted them and loved them for the changes that they had chosen to make. With that being said, why is it that Memmi, along with some other philosophers, believes that it is impossible to even perceive someone in the colonized group as being accepting of a colonizer - who has denounced himself and his own privileges in order to join the colonized. I think that just refusing in your mind IS NOT enough, but refusing in your mind AND taking action may very well be enough. After all, once the colonizer leaves the colonizing group, he is considered an outsider of some sort. For him to be accepted into the colonized group should be proof enough that he is unanimously "loved" by its people, right? Plus, there are always going to be people who don't like Blacks and people who don't like Whites. Conflict is a part of human nature.

What about the quote, "We come to love that for which we freely suffer?" Could it be the case that the colonizer becomes loved by the colonized because they have freely suffered, psychologically, due to his oppression and in order to alleviate cognitive dissonance, they tell themselves that, in fact, he can become one of them? It seems possible to me anyway...

Being American, Being a Black American, Being a Female American

Brittany’s post from last week got me thinking. A few classes ago we were talking about W.E.B. Du Bois, I think, and were discussing what it is to be “American”. We discussed how being an American in a way presupposes being a white male. Due to this individuals must identify with not only being American but also with whatever it is that makes them deviate from the “norm”. This leads to a black male to identify himself as “black” in addition to being “American”, and a white female to indentify as both a “woman” and an “American”. If this is the case, women and non-white individuals must be aware of these roles with which they identify. White males, on the other hand, merely identify with being “American” and do not have to deal with the conflicting identities. This relates back to Brittany’s post because while maybe children aren’t aware of it, they might still experience the conflicts of identities that we described in class. While white children aren’t aware of racial injustice as they are not subject to it, black children see it more readily and experience it in some capacity. I think this difference persists into young adulthood to the point that white college students might disagree with what is the supposed “norm” of racial interactions while black students tend to agree with them. Whites, especially males, are just less aware of social inequalities and such because they are not on the receiving end. Whites who believe they don’t treat people different based on race (regardless of if they do) are always going to refute certain claims of how people act because they are not subject to social inequalities and identify with the race that is responsible for most social injustice, yet they do not participate in it. A black or female student might be more willing to agree with certain assertions because while they might not participate in it, they definitely experience being subjected. It can be very difficult for whites to recognize social inequalities when they are never subject to them.

The Implications of Negritude

Negritude poses some serious problems for me. I have trouble buying into the idea that there are racial “essentials” in the first place, because there is no science in the field of genetics to validate those claims. All of us in the class seem to agree with the idea that there is no genetic basis for race as we know it, but we also seem to gloss over the that fact often. Where I think this has the most impact is in our discussion of negritude. Senghor claims that black value expresses itself, “through primordial rhythms, synchronized with those of the Cosmos.” As stated in class, this initially sounds like something a mild-mannered racist would say. Perhaps it would be something you were more likely to hear in the drum circle at Overton Park and not something normally found in a philosophy text. It’s problem lies not in just its stylistic elements, but also in its foundations.

When Senghor states that these are the ways black values express themselves, he gives no reason as to why this is so. In a way, we just have to take his word for it. If we do indeed take his word for it, then it also follows that there are negative aspects that apply to all blacks. Blacks are humans and humans certainly have flaws, so blacks must have negative aspects as well as positive ones. This seems like a dangerous road to take, for negative racial essentials are what the Nazis used in their European racialism. Essentially, if one allows for racial essentials at all, then one must also allow for negative racial essentials.

Negritude also poses a problem for me in that it concentrates so much on the differences between races. The blacks have something to offer to the world that the whites can’t and the whites have something to offer that the blacks can’t. I really don’t see the separation of “offerings” as a way to eliminate racism as it exists today. We are all humans and therefore have the potential to offer the same thing. Of course, that last statement runs into trouble when considering figures like MLK. As Prof. Johnson brought up in class, his contribution to the Civil Rights Movement was as a black man, and not just a man. I am not sure how to reconcile this idea with the idea that we shouldn’t concentrate on our differences. MLK himself argued for focusing on our similarities rather than our differences, which I think was what gave strength to his argument.

1964 Civil Rights Bill vs. 1965 Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

. What I mean by asserting that structural racism is not recognized in American political discourse is that only the symptoms of racism are treated, and poorly at best. At the same time, the system is reproducing the power inequalities already inherent in it. To highlight this, read over and compare the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the UN resolution for Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1965. There seem to be some misconceptions about the civil rights bill's effective strength.

First, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 DID NOT:

- Title 1 did NOT outlaw literacy tests and other forms of qualification for voters to vote (even though this was the main focus of the bill). Instead, it required "equal" testing of all voters who turned up at the polls. This changed the American "right" to vote into another Jim Crow regulated system LEGALLY.

- Title 2 did NOT outlaw discrimination in "private" establishments, only in public places such as parks, theatres, and hotels. So one could construe this as saying "sure, we can look equal" when in reality most establishments are not public and could continue to restrict services at their discretion.

- Title 3 did NOT do anything to aid desegregation of public schools, which were officially desegregated in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education - but, because whites and blacks lived in such radically segregated areas, it in effect did nothing for those people who did not have the means to commute to a new (and sometimes hostile) school further away. This is because school busing was still reserved primarily for students who lived, you guessed it, in the "right" neighborhoods.

- Title IV did NOT force the government to withdraw funds from federally funded bodies which still practiced discrimination. Instead, it merely "authorized" the government to do so. Again, here is a huge loophole which magically made its way into what should have been a plain black and white text bill that denounced discrimination.

- Title V did NOT end racial hiring biases in all businesses. Only businesses which are over 25 people are even targeted by this provision. Now some may consider this to be plenty of businesses, but think about the aim of this bill. Is it to give equal rights to those who "wish to work in businesses with 26 or more people?" That is ludicrous.

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was established in 1965. The Convention's definition of racial discrimination is:

"...Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

The United States government refused to ratify this (it was not ratified by the U.S. until the 1990's). If this doesn't stir some questions about the truth in American political discourse, then nothing will. The stark contrast between the farce of racial equity espoused in our laws and the real, blatant facts of it is stupefying.

MCS/ County School Systems: Issue of the children or race

The school consolidation in Memphis has been a subject that has constantly been on my mind being a graduate of Memphis City Schools. While I am constantly torn in between the idea of consolidation as an issue or as advancement, I do believe that some of W.E.B DuBois' arguments are relevant for today. In the text we read for class, DuBois believes that we must progress on our own and not rely on others to help us advance ourselves. He also states that ""hated here, despised there and pitied everywhere; our one haven of refuge is ourselves". This can be applied to this issue with the school system in Memphis because many people believe that the entire issue of consolidation boils down to the issues of race segregation and class differences.

While Memphis City Schools’ student body is predominantly African American, Shelby County’s school system is the exact opposite. Many times Shelby County School are placed higher than MCS due to their higher numbers in test scores, less disciplinary problems, and a host of other reason. What many people fail to realize and embarrass is the differences in the student body’s of both school systems. People are comparing apples and oranges when considering the outcome of test scores and the number of suspensions that each school system experiences. In some ways, Shelby County does not want to be affiliated with MCS due to the stigma associated with the school system in the city. In my opinion, I see this as a form of assimilation because I think that we are giving up on our kids and surrendering a charter to a school system who is doing all they possibly can in order to stay separated from the city school system. In the words of Malcolm X, “I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in the brotherhood of anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me.”

I think this blunt rejection of wanting to be affiliated with MCS should be inspiration to try and change those negative perceptions that come along with the city school system. DuBois said that we must change on our own and stray away form so much whining and complaining. If the schools consolidate, we will not be combining ideals from both systems but surrendering to the structures of the county schools which will not be successful with the city’s student body. Different children require different structures and rules. While I am not completely sure where I stand on this issue, I do think both sides have very beneficial factors. March 3^rd is the day I will be voting, wish me luck!

How Do Children See Race?

http://www.handinhandparenting.org/news/30/64/How-Do-Children-See-Race

We are first introduced to race when we are younger and it grows more complex as we get older as the stereotypes and daily encounters we see are reinforced. I blame our elders for any notions instilled in the current generation that impedes or even improves a child's idea of race, because we are first introduced to our ideas by our parents and they are reinforced by our encounters outside of the home.

I thought it was interesting in this article when it said:

"Relatively few studies have been done on how children of other races, including whites, become aware of racial differences. Those available suggest that skin color is not as salient an issue for white children at the early grade-school stage of development as it is for blacks. It is understandable that young white children do not tend to regard skin color as important, since racial prejudice is generally not a factor in their lives".

So how then is racial prejudice introduced to black children? Is it from their parents? Or could it be from these children who are unconcerned with racial prejudice at an early age? The article quotes, "Racism is not congenital; it has to be learned", when then is the idea of race learned? The author, who is black, converses with a young Australian girl completely oblivious to race. She asks the author about their skin color and lips as if they were carrying a normal conversation, but as it amuses the author, it creates discomfort with the other white adults.

By her parents' discomfort the child would clearly eventually see that there was a difference between her and the author. They make it seem like something is wrong instead of the letting the child discover on her own that there are others out in the world besides herself, but despite physical differences they are the same. They can have something as simple as a conversation and prejudices won't matter as the parents make it seem.

Could it be that because whites are more privileged than other races that are able to look past race than more inferior races? Are their parents trying to mask the fact that there are differences unlike blacks who make their children aware that they are different and that there are obstacles that they have to overcome and stereotypes they have to fight because history and society tells them that they are different?

How were you introduced to race?

The Definition of Race vs. our Our Perceptions of People as Races

In our discussion on Tuesday about "Conservation of Races" we started a class dialog about race as it would be defined by a person on the street and whether Dubois' definition was similar to the idea about race that most people have. During our dialog, I was struck by the presence of two seemingly conflicting ideas about defining race. Dubois gives us a scientific, non-biological, definition of race. He argued that race is a combination of factors not having to do with skin color or the way people look but factors such as a common history and shared ideals. Which launched us into answering the question, is that not what most people would define race as today. Here begin the conflict. I believe that most people would define race in a similar way today. Sure, some would still sight skin color or facial construction as factors, but I think that most would put cultural and historical likeness above physical appearance. But, how does the language of a definition translate into perception of the world? This is where most of the disagreement in class stemmed from, I believe.

First, I'm going to refer to the thought-out definition of race as the 'academic definition.' I believe that this definition is one that usually only through open-mindedness and education will a person arrive at. Perhaps not as much for our generation, but definitely for previous ones, the influence of racism and race creates and environment that fosters one to accept it, unless they enter into an environment of learning, logic, debate, and discovery, also known as academia. Therefor, most people who are asked to give an academic definition of race will give one that focuses largely on non-physical aspects of a people.

This however, is merely a definition. It is a creation of many factors, beliefs about one’s world, values about human rights, adoption of social and political ideas, and ones ascription to the arguments of writers and thinkers. How much a definition of race is actually accepted into one’s personal values is dependent on more then one’s public announcement of their belief.

Freud’s theory of the id, ego, and superego is perhaps the simplest way to understand this. Our superego is what society and external influences expect us to do and believe. This is the academic definition of race, or in the case of our class, the rejection of race as a valid category in itself. Either way, our superego tells us to think a certain way about race and present that to the world. Meanwhile our id, the subconscious expression of our desires, prejudices, and needs tells us something different. Granted, the id is a developed component of ourselves, mostly cemented during childhood through influences of our parents, teachers, and peers, but there are components of the id that are the result of biological responses. This is where our perception of the world, what we see in people when we walk into a room, is in conflict with our superego in our view of race. We perceive certain things about people through our sense; we see skin tone, facial features, body type, what they wear, we hear their language and dialect, and what music they listen to. From these perceptions our mind draws conclusions. We are wired to do this. Grouping and attributing people to groups is a technique for survival that is wired into our brains. It allows us to pick friend from foe, clearly not as much in todays world, but definitely in humans’ past history. It is a normally done by grouping people as ‘like us’ and people ‘not like us.’

So we have these two components of ourselves, the id and superego that are in conflict and our ego attempts to reconcile them. It is how our ego resolves this that creates in us a new value judgement and the ‘working’ definition of race among humans. This is why I argue that while the academic definition of race is good, and necessary to the advancement of discussion about race, it is not actually overwriting our reaction to people who we perceive as different from ourselves. We must understand in our exploration of race that race is labeling system for us to group people in; people are either like us (our race) or not (another race). As long as the label of race is recognized, in any capacity, we will group people based on our perceptions of them, on their ‘biological race,’ not based on their historical or cultural aspects. In other words, we can only escape our perceptions about race by eliminating the term completely and not giving us the ability to label the ‘out-group’ as another race. Whether we admit that we do this is dependent on the power of our superego and id. I have argued before that we must recognize these truths about ourselves, even if they are painful to admit, so that we can understand our subconscious ideas about race and thus learn to refute or change them.

From Subjective to Structural: Racial Power Dynamics

American Political Discourse has great difficulty coming to terms with the reality and gravity of racism. I believe a big part of this is because of the values which our society holds in such high regard: individual autonomy and responsibility. From our political theory, economic system and intellectual history to our cultural norms, everything centers around these concepts. Thus, remedies and analyses of racism rely primarily on an individual agent's culpability. Racism, so the story goes, is the fault of the bigot. Racist actions are only those actions which intend to harm members of a certain group. In this narrative, the enemy of racial equity is thinking in terms of groups, and judging people based on the perceived value of the group. Thus, by becoming "color-blind" a society can attempt to create a tabula rasa with respect to personal exchange, interaction and moral assessment. I argue that this "solution" which society has come up with is wholly unproductive for a meaningful progression of race-relations, and in fact could be the worst option.

This color-blind filter which is worked into society forecloses analyses and solutions which would consider collective outcomes of a people as significant, or one which considers the agency and culpability for discrimination as residing in something other than the subject. This lens places us behind a veil of ignorance, and wholly avoids the question of race - only becoming cognizant of racism when individuals show an explicit intent to discriminate. Our failure to recognize and engage the giant elephant in the room that is racism arises in part from a deeply ingrained philosophical sensibility, enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, firmly rooted in British empiricism and social contract theory, which takes the individual as the sole unit of analysis, responsibility, and justice. Within this context, it is impossible to articulate why (or how) it is that racial disparities that are not traceable to intentions of individual actors come about.

The realities of structural racism in America must be brought to bear on our theoretical discourse. Naively atomistic constructions of the bigoted individual as the sole actor and perpetuator of racism will not hold weight with even a mildly observant citizen. There is a structural component which is so deeply-rooted as to be nearly invisible to many. We must focus on the implicit logic and thought processes as well as institutions which foster such blatantly racist discrimination as abounds in America. For those of you who still do not understand what I mean by structural racism, Here is a PDF about housing in America.

Race is not real, but should we eliminate it?

DuBois’ argues that race is defined by a group of people who share a “common history” and a “common striving.” However, Appiah critically notes that such commonalities are a product of a group, not the establishment of a group. Thus, Dubois is committed to the biological/anthropological construction of race, especially when discussing the message that African Americans must convey. The reader is left to ponder, “what constitutes the African American race?” and “Who belongs to the common history of African Americans if biology is not a factor?” Such questions reveal the illogical nature of DuBois’ proposal.

Considering there is no scientific basis for race, Appiah is a proponent for the “eliminativist” argument. Essentially, Appiah believes that race should be eliminated because race is not real. I find this perspective to be frustrating, even borderline offensive. I admittedly am not tied to the sciences; I have neither taken nor desire to take courses in physics, molecular biology, organic chemistry and so forth. Therefore, perhaps I do not fully appreciate what is scientifically proven/disproven to be “real,” “true,” or “a priori.” With that said, I do not understand why something should be suppressed simply because it is not “real.” What eliminativists seem to wrongly negate are the consequences of race—the deeply engrained and enduring oppression that particular groups of people have had to face. Moreover, the idea of race is largely intertwined with cultural communities that people positively identify with. I believe that people who are not well informed about the philosophy of race would be opposed to eliminating their race, considering it influences their traditions, values, speech, etc. Although there is no biological and/or genetic component for race, our history has been greatly influenced by the pseudoscientific definition of race. If we want to learn from our history, then we must acknowledge race rather than eliminate it. In acknowledging “race,” we are responsible for clarifying the misconceptions and preserving the benefits.

I am hoping that we will further investigate the “eliminativist” perspective during the next few classes. I cannot wrap my head around how one would begin to eliminate race. Would such an active push for assimilation begin in early childhood education? Although I disagree with eliminating race, I want to know how eliminativists would realistically encourage people to do so. Or, is the eliminativist argument an ideal concept with no realistic intent? Answers to these questions may sway my perspective, but for now I believe one should conserve race.