/* ?! wHAT bOX: A Treatise On America's Color War (as I see it, at least)

Aug 26, 2009

A Treatise On America's Color War (as I see it, at least)

I recently posted an image to a popular social exchange website and got some rather pointed responses. No one took offense to the image (it was a political suggestive image) nor did anyone respond negatively, but still, points did arise that we hardly my intention so I respond to them here. I thank all for the good humor that was consistent in all of the comments, but at the same time, I would still like to address my own stance on the issue.



First of all, I am no political scientist, find politics appealing, but amusing. I have little to speak of in the way of an opinion when it comes to politics, so I state little there. This, however, is not the case for what I do hold as an opinion of the views expressed by the people who view the politics themselves - the psychology of the people, as it were, not an interpretation of the politics directly.

Let me state my background and why I am taking up your time to do so: I simply and making a point as to why I am not taking a prejudicial stance on anything as the issue of "color" has been mentioned by myself and several others. A larger concern is actually race, not color, but most people will smaller exposure the other cultures and peoples fail to recognize the distinction - so let me use myself as an example. I am generally passed off as being African American, and yet nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly and obviously, I do have more melanin in my skin than many Europeans, but this is no direct distinction of race. How so? My ancestry, through all of my relatives can prove me to be all of the following: Scott's Irish (grandfather), Asian Indian and part African (grandmother), South American Mayan Indian (other grandmother), Honduran and possibly German because of name (other grandfather). To cap things off, I was borne in a country in Central/South America which technically makes me Latin American / Hispanic. My parents speak English and Spanish as does much of the rest of my family. The US Census terms me a "Non-White Hispanic".

I still carry a green card, I am technically not an American though I've lived here nearly all my life. I pay the same amount of taxes as the next guy (maybe more, I need kids for a tax break :) ), I'm registered with the military just like anyone else, I have a social security number, just like any one else, and I worry about the neighbors' gangly looking grass and fluctuating gas prices, just like anyone else. The point is that I do not have the background that most people do. I have no dog in the color/race struggle of America; I have no chips to cash in on who wins or loses - I simply do not care all that much. I do not run around with signs screaming "viva la raza" or any other variation. I do not sign up with LULAC or other such organizations - I have no affiliations. This makes me the least biased and most objective viewer in the situation.

This is not to say that I don't understand that struggles of the different peoples of this country - I do, but understand that this country has seen virtually nothing as compared to the rest of the world. Stalin, Hitler, Chairman Mua, ideas from Lenin and Marx have dug mass graves which make the problems of American tiny in comparison. The lives lost by leader ship in Bosnia, Croatia, the Middle East, South Africa; children without parents and whole families wiped out from the face of the earth based on their last name being Lipschitz or because of the physical location of their homes. I understand the struggles of America, but in light of the rest of the planet who can't get in line for food stamps or demand of their presidents and leaders better support for the poor while they tear open their unemployment checks and turn up the AC while the remains of others lie unknown in graves with numbers etched into their arms or with bullet-riddled chests.

And yet what is news to this country is Twitter.com going down for 10 minutes...

...Back to the picture...
The color of the President makes no difference to me, his leadership abilities do. I do not think that the leadership of this country is an appointment light enough to make a political stance regarding race. I walk around my office and see posters and calendars up where none was before simply because of the color of the President's skin. I understand that this may be a step forward for this nation and a particular people specifically, but is the leadership of one of the world's most powerful countries the best place to play those games? If he ends up not being the best choice, then at least the voice of that particular community was heard, huh? Perhaps while the country is being flushed, at least a community of people were noticed, eh? I'm not being rude, but there is more to consider than just race and the race war of this country.

I do no side with nor defend white supremacists nor do I support "black power". In fact, most of my friends have to defend their statements, much as I do, in order not to offend people. Some times I think that the majority peoples have it harder than the minorities! They have to PC everything in order not to be sued by a single mother with darker skin based on a silly comment!

I have no right to be prejudiced in the least. I am mixed with nearly every continent of people (all except North American, ironically). If there is anyone more confused as to the race, I'd like to meet them :). I generally get lumped in with Indians in class and Mexicans at lunch. One of my closest friends is part Sri Lankan and part African American, and yet he was borne in Germany. I have known family in between 4 to 6 countries right now and all over the US. I have no right to be judgmental to any particular people and I am not. I do have preferences to culture yes, which is evident when I speak, lol, but none to race.

My point regarding the voting and the color of the President is hardly to refer to the actual numbers of the vote based on race - I have no idea if that affected the numbers at all. I am simply saying that I cannot see a less wise way of voting - forget the issues and base your vote on the candidates color? Its just as ignorant as basing the vote on the fact that your family has always voted a single way because of....well the fact that they always have voted that way!! Ignore the stances of the party and vote along party lines because you always have voted that way? Let's all throw caution to the wind and vote not based on reason, but on whim? Maybe we have the "lesser of the evils" as it has been stated, in the current President - but maybe we don't.

I'm not knocking neither the current President for his abilities, nor the former one. I'm simply looking for humor in it all; cynics have to, least they take a overly negative stance on things. I have to laugh or else I'll a less than happy view of things. My actions are to keep from being offensive, not the other way around.

7 comments:

Mary Frances said...

popular social exchange website- what is that and what post?

Btw-there is really only one race, according to the bible...

Albert Menzies said...

facebook. most of the comments made on this post were posted in facebook as my blogfeeds into the notes section of FB.

Enlighten me :) I have no qualms with dropping the case of race altogether, its terribly divisive and generally useless when its pros and cons are considered, and yet it does lend a level of accuracy to ethnicity and the histories of different peoples, but I'm not certain where biblically there is a single race.

The bible mentions that we are heirs of god and "an holy nation" but its referring to a religious or spiritual consideration of the term, not the realistic version (physical). I'm hardly referring the spiritual version of this at all in the post, but to the real world association of it.

Do understand that I care little about race or color. It, again, helps to identify the history of that particular person to an extent, but should never be used to segregate a subset of humans nor promote the value of one over another. I don't think that it should create boundaries to ANY extent at all, in the end, human beings are human beings and genetically its pathetic to argue over the literally inexistance of distinctive racial lines view by physical means...

From wikipedia:

"Another way to look at differences between populations is to measure genetic differences rather than physical differences. The Human Genome Project found only gradations in genetic variation, not sharp lines which would naturally define notions of race or ethnicity. "People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other."[47]"

Bekki said...

Anthropologically there is no such thing as "race" between humans. It is only culture. In order to be a different "race" according to science, you must have a different chromosome count. So, for example, a dog is a different race than a human.

I agree with you completely though on this post. Socially there are different "races," and so we must address it from that angle instead of the angle of "culture."

Mary Frances said...

Exactley!!! According to the bible there is ONLY one race and that is the human race. The bible never really mentions different races but different culltures, nations, tongue and creeds...( Rev. 5:9 bein one of those scriptures) I have a whole study on it and its really interesting.(This is what my pastor has been teaching) The differences all go back to after the flood and the tower of babel. When God changed the languages at the tower of babel, the people that spke the same languages migrated together to certain lands. Those that gathered north towards the Eurasion continent that was most likely under the ice age were under harsh coldness developed over time (Like 100's of years I would say) developed certain physical characteristics that favour survival in that type of enviornment. All skin tone is controlled by a natural pigment prodused by the body known as melanin. The body produces melanin as a defense to the rays of sun. As a person is exposed to the sun their skin tone darkens as a defense to the rays of sun. The amount of melanin that can be produced is pre-encoded in their DNA. Those with darker skin coloration are far more resistant to the rays of sun which is great in a very warm enviornment, but in harsher colder weather it becomes detrimental. In the northern continent it was those with the lighter pigmentation that would survive...This would serve to further narrow the gene pool until the result was certain distinctive features, pale skin, blond hair, blue eyes, etc..(Hair and eye color is also controled through melanin)Meanwhile the opposite occured with groups that migrated to the south, particulary in the African continent) The features that were favored in the northern climate were liabilites here. Once again the gene pool began to narrow down until certain characteristics were developed, dark skin, shorter curlier hair, and dark eyes. These are two extremes...meanwhile the rest of the world remained somewhere in between these two...a medium shade of brown. So what color were Adam and Eve?! The whole human diversity had to be represented in the genetic code of Adam and Eve. To have the capacity to produce the entire spectrum of humanity, Adam and Eve would have to have been a medium shade of brown. An extreme in either direction (Light or dark) would have resulted in to limited genetic information to establish the whole entire human variation of today. So in reality there is really no black or white, even though we say that...we are all really just different shades of brown...and in my opinion thats pretty COOL!!! Are you enlightend yet?! :)

Albert Menzies said...

ggrrr, well! I had a book and a half of comment being submitted when the network or whatever decides to die and I will not retype all of that!!!

So, anyway, suffice it to say that I agreed with both of you regarding the term "race". I use it to be understood a bit better, but most people use it completely out of definition.

On the point of the development of melanin...I've heard that particular theory, but it also involves a timeline adopted by most evolutionists and other concepts. I'm not against it, but I do have problems reconciling the time windows.

Mary Frances said...

Well I am not exactley sure of the time period to be honest...but ALL the info came from My pastor's son who is a pastor in Canada. He is a bible scholar and like studies like all kinds of stuff on creation...I am kinda sure that his info isn't from evolutionists, but then again, I don't really know! Aw man, I hate when that happens- you shoulda just retyped it!!! LOL Oh and yeah, it's not like I don't use the word race...LOL I mean if I am describing someone I am still like he is a black guy ... Not oh it was a guy with really dark brown skin, or if I am describing myself I say I am white, I am not like I am a girl with really, light brown skin...LOL That would be kinda funny though if i did that!!! HAHA!!!
Btw- where did you get your info on the melanin?
Also, what does the bible say about race? Does it even mention it? Cause I don't really even think that God would consider animals another race....Like we were made in HIS image and HIS likeness...

Mary Frances said...

Left a comment on the last post too- I am wondering what that sign even stands for that you said peeps were sayin stuff cause I dont even know!!!