Childhood

On page 109 of Zack's TAR she says, "Parents who do not have college educations or the financial and social resources -- that is, the leisure -- to teach their children how to behave like middle-class children are unlikely to reproduce middle-class values in the course of child rearing. Children of the poor are therefore likely to grow up with different values, different ideas of what is important in life, from middle-class children." I have a few problems with this passage. Obviously, the economically deprived class in America, spread all over the country, from cities to rural areas, do not have the same values as those in the middle-class. But that is not to say they cannot learn to treat everyone with respect.
Zack is trying to say class-status is one reason for the propagation of racism, but I see it more as an excuse. No matter what your socioeconomic status is or where you're from or what your favorite flavor of ice cream is you should be able to treat another person the way you'd like to be treated. It is such an old and over-used proverb, but its so true.
Another idea this passage made me think of is how racism isn't just a white problem. I don't believe that racism would be solved if tomorrow every white person in America said I am going to accept all people as my brother and sister, and treat them like family. I think there are preconceived notions that all races use, that is to say a black person already believes that a white person they've never met is a racist and is going to treat them in a certain way because of it. I don't know where or even if there's an answer to that particular problem, just putting it out there.

All whites are racist?

In the 1960's, Martin Luther King said that most whites in America were either consciously or subconsciously racist.  Though racial issues are not as present now as they were then, has America proven with its many unbiased votes for Obama that if a person is educated and honorable that they will be accepted by the majority no matter what skin color/ethnic background? 

I believe that racism is still a problem in America, but evidence such as the Presidential election proves that the problem is getting better.  Sometimes I think that we should be focusing on more important issues in the world like hunger and poverty versus racism.  This is similar to another post about why we are talking about the issue in the first place.  You decide.

Just wondering

Do not mean to ignore other posts, will soon comment on them. This is a personal thought, so ...I have just been wanting to say/ask. So in class when we were talking about what racial classifications are doing for us, I got that in general and kind of as a rule we (humans) will always be looking for something to classify/differentiate between ourselves to serve the purpose of excluding/including a particular division/class in the pursuit/acquisition of power. So that the power struggle is something that will always be starring us in the face in terms of something that will always be a problem if ever we want to talk about or examine differences among people. If this is the case, (do not mean to sound pessimistic) then what is the purpose of even talking about this? I have been wondering about this a long time now, so I am very interested to know what people think and this will kind of help me know what to expect as far as the course goes.

I really wasn't sure if it would happen, but I finally warmed up to Naomi Zack during this reading. However, one of the passages assigned didn't seem quite right to me.

On page 40 of Thinking About Race, Zack writes, "Why should the values and styles of the social, economic, political, and educational elites be definitive of ethnicity in America? Perhaps the ethnicity of those on the bottoms and margins of society-- those who are poor and undereducated; those whose lives take alternative forms due to disabilities, special talents, nontraditional family structures; those who are not heterosexual, who are in prison, are illiterate, are here illegally, have AIDs, or are homeless-- perhaps they and their ethnic groups deserve to be as definitive of a distinct American ethnicity as members of the privileged American elite."

Parts of this passage resound profoundly with the way I would reform/create an American ethnicity. For example, in reworking the current American ethnicity I would call for the celebration of the lifestyles, differences, and traditions of non-heterosexuals, those with nontraditional family structures, those with disabilities, and those with special talents (to name a few). Embracing these groups of people could serve to eliminate prejudice and social discomfort due to unfamiliarity.

However, the fact that Zack tries to associate those things with ethnicity ("perhaps the ethnicities of those on the bottoms and margins of society...") troubles me. Of course, some ethnic groups may have a higher instance of people who fit any one of the above descriptions. However, I feel that its also fair to say that there are substantial numbers of almost every ethnic group that are non-heterosexual, have disabilities, are homeless, etc. etc. To try to definitively link these things to any specific ethnicity seems to undermine the point of the book.

Secondly, I take issue with some of the groups that Zack asserts that American ethnicity should recognize and revere. Zack asks why shouldn't the imprisoned be included in the American ethnicity. Well, Naomi, I feel that I can answer that question for you. It's because they've been convicted of crimes. And obviously, if an individual is in jail for any length of time the crime was generally serious. Not only that, but those in jail burden our society by sitting in a jail and using up tax dollars. I do not think we should offer those in prison recognition in our crowning national identity until they have paid their debt to society.

Also, those who are homeless are more often than not mentally ill and refusing treatment. Our reformed society should work to eradicate homelessness through the offering of psychiatric help, shelter, and care. However, it should not make any steps to make homelessness a main-stay in our culture.

Illiteracy also poses a problem for me in terms of its place in American society. According to the CIA World Fact B0ok (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html), 99 percent of the total population over the age of 15 can read and write. Clearly, effective institutions for literacy exist. Those who remain illiterate deserve respect and a real education. However, they should not be exalted in American for their choice to stay illiterate.

I wish I were more concisely and more eloquently verbalize my issues with her argument. However, I think that most of you will get the gist of what I'm saying. I'm interested to see how everyone else reacted to this passage.

Question: Is Zack relying on ignorance?

When reading through chapter 1 of Naomi Zack's book "Thinking About Race," I was confused about how she was trying to refute 19th century biological theory of racial essences. On page 12, she states that "Many people continue to believe that there is a scientific basis for racial divisions, and the lack of this basis in itself makes their ideas about race false." Maybe I am reading out of context, or simple am not picking up on sarcasm, but it is fallacious to arrive at a conclusion from the lack of that conclusions counter evidence. That is, because there is a lack of evidence proving A, that does not make not A a true statement. In context, because there is a lack of scientific basis for racial divisions, that does not mean that no biological racial divisions exist, and one can not conclude that those believing in such are false. At one point there was no evidence that the earth orbited the sun, but that ignorance does not justify affirming the position that the earth then must not orbit the sun.

Is Zack committing a similar fallacy or am I missing something?

A Complex Question

Naomi Zack leaves the reader with the following question in conclusion to chapter 1: "The important question to consider and reconsider is this: do differences among human groups require a taxonomy or classification scheme that creates the kind of strong divisions associated with the idea of race in the false biological sense." The ambiguity and implicit implications of this question requires a closer look at what is being said.

To me is seems there are two questions being mashed together into one. There are the following:

1) Do differences among human groups require a taxonomy.

2) Does racial classification schemes necessarily create undesirable strong divisions that are associated with the idea of race in the false biological sense?

These are two very difference questions that require to be asked and answered separately. Answering the former questions is a matter of practicality. Zack already noted the inherent irrationality in such a taxonomy, due to having negations embedded in the conclusion (proving one not to have black ancestors per say). One is left discussing racial classification therefore in a purely pragmatic manner. Does it require a taxonomy? Not if the use of the word "require" is to mean that a taxonomy is a "necessary condition" for differences in human groups. Yet if require simply holds pragmatic connotation, then I would argue yes, appealing to the fact that categorizing groups is fundamentally efficient, as history has demonstrated.

The second question is more contingent on what subject the "classification scheme" is modifying. Some classification schemes do seem to create undesirable divisions while others do not. If Zack is asking whether it is possible to classify different human groups without creating undesirable differences, then answering such requires investigating the specific nature of human grouping. Why are some unique characterizations of human classification that create problems?

The point is that Zack's complex question is unclear in distinguishing between whether we want to classify human differences at all, or simple whether this can be done in a way that does not create undesirable divisions. I think we naturally and pragmatically want to classify any differences that appear nature, yet the way we classify, viz. the meaning we put behind the visible differences, is of importance to carefully consider.

Is this enlightenment?

For your critical viewing pleasure:
(the link takes a moment to load; be patient)

Nissan - Chow Mein / Eddie Wise - (2009) :30 (USA)

What's going on here?