the whiter the better

the whiter the better
I read in the autobiography of Malcolm X a thesis that was tought to black people and that is that the whiter a human, the better a person.
Malcolm conjectures that black people consider mulatoes better subconsciously because of that. this kind of stereotyping rule has ramifications even today. it may not be manifested in everyday life but take for example positive discrimination. I think that in order to show that certain companis do not discriminate, they hire a prototype of a minority which they are accused of discriminating. similar event happened to me while I was driving and was not obeyed by a driver next to me. I saw that there was a group of gypsies and I reasoned that that was the reason why they did not let me go in front of them because a white (the whiter the better) driver would yield. here I realized that subconsciously I also live according to stereotypes. similarly with women. There are many survey that women in fact are not worse drivers than men but they are told that they are and that is paradoxically the reason the drive probably with no such certainty as men. women do take these reproaches that are not based on any racional argument seriously. when I see a woman driving who makes a mistake I subconsciously vindicate her behavior on the basis of her sex. when a man does a mistake I subconsciously say to myself that he has a bad day or something irrelevant like. I think that these patters that we live by are very deeply rooted and must be actively and seriously analyzed and decomposed so that we are capable of seeing not so blurilly but clearly based not on stereotypes but on personal traits and qualities.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Advertisement
Standard

Review of Martin Luther King

Having seen the performance of M.L. King by the TNT Theatre Britain, I can´t but applause to the five actors (of which there were four Afroamerican). The play covered some of the most important events in the civil right movement, begining with Rosa Park and the boycott, going through Martin Luther King´s speech I have a dream and ending with his death. In no more than two hourse it is possible to convey the message of the movement. In the play, there was also very nicely compared the attitude towards the non-violent King´s approach – loving your enemies, and the more radical approach. The hypothetical question is whether there would be any great and swift advancement without violence. One may even conjecture that if dr. King would not have been murdered, there would not have been such a mediality and thus the leaders and politicans would not get so much involved. This is not to say that violence is a better tool than non- violence, but it is important to think in both ways – mixing both approaches was very vividly shown in the play.

One thing I did not like was stereotyping the white sheriff as a primitive brute. I understand that when there is a deficienty of respect on one side, there is a need to compensate it by showing the other party worse than it really is – by this I do not mean to vindicate the deeds of whites towards black people but I would like emphasisze that many who were portrayed as enemies (for example police) were not given a choice and although that white policemen could have a different opinion about segregation than leading politicans, they had to folow the order and be harsh towards black people who did not listen to the orders.

Standard

Minorities within states and nations

What happens when a minority starts to gain influence within a larger community or a state or a nation? When a minority group immigrates into a foreign state, the usual way is to create a community where these minority people gather. This is unfortunate but natural, one usually seeks sameness-group with same attributes, be it social (status) or racial/national. Social attributes are those which can be changed. One can transfer from one group into another, these communities are in my point of view natural, problem arises when one sees and seeks a community as a rigid unchangeable system – based on nationality or a color – in other words on inherent difference. This is usually the case with migrants – be it turks in Germany, Vietnamese in Czech Republic, or large Muslim communiteis in the suburbs of Paris. The greatest problem is in my view education. No more than 30 percent of Turks in Germany finish high school education. Majority of Turks work in menial jobs and Kebab-restaurants. This would not be a problem, but is this separation voluntary or not? Do they want to assimilate into the country which accepted and adopted them or do they want to retain they lifestyle which is very often not on good terms with the culture and style of the majority people? The country which accepts people into its land should welcome them in order to create a plural and multicultural society, but the immigrants should always be prepared to give up the customs not used or even despised in the (usually more civilised) country which accepts them – most notably the radical branch of sharia law which is still common in some Arab countires. Should we welcome immigrants as those who should partake on our inheritance or should we guard it against them? On one hand the migrants need a shelter from the richer culture, but on the other how can the dominant culture ensure that it stays so, in other words that it can guard itself against the minority which might grow into majority? Maybe this was the fear that white Americans had against black community. Considering the immigrant crisis, one sees the dichotomy between accepting them – inviting them and sharing our inheritance with them vs. not letting them in, claiming that what I have is my own and there is not a reason for giving it to others for free. In America, whites were never to accept black people and suddenly in the 20th century there was a great, maybe too radical a change, as even some black leaders claimed. I think that the most important thing is to see everybody not as a cultural object, but as an individulity which has inaliable rights-the same should be viewed by the coming,immigrant culture. The incoming people should always know that they will be sheltered when in need, but the right to individual freedom should always be kept, notwithstanding religion, gender or color of skin.

Standard

Affirmative action – pros and cons.

When thinking about affirmative action, one has to acknowledge that the reason for any such action is a reaction to the problems formerly unsolved. Positive discrimination is discrimination as well and one has to found a compromise about it, as Elliot claims, it is only a tentative solution. Race cannot function as a measurement for evaluation of humans – be it admitance into a university or anywhere else. The resolution in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke showed that racial quotas are unconstitutional and this should function both ways. When trying to uphold the black population because whites have these advantages already, one agains stresses the difference between races. Race, as opposed to social statues is an invented concept. I would say that there is not a problem with quotas, but with “racial” quotas, because there is no such thing as a race – one would have to make a boundary between white and black, it would be necessary to show how many white/black descendants are still making the one particular human black or white. Thus, quotas against any minority are a very awkward solution, if the authorities make difference between races and not social statuses. In my view, there should be positive discrimination for any minority, but such discrimination should not be based on any outer difference (be it color or anything else) but solely on their social situation – for example the addmitance to university should be made possible equally to those who are able to pay for it and also for those who are not.

Standard