RACISM AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY

RACISM and CULTURAL DIVERSITY

Joe Wilkins

It is with some trepidation that I post this essay, because it deals with racism and cultural issues rampant in America, about which many of our citizens have strong feelings. In addition, there are many people who take various, strong positions on these issues, simply because they were raised to adulthood under different influences, and have had neither the time nor inclination to investigate and seek the facts. I hope this discourse will prod people to think in ways that can lead to enlightened pathways into the future.

The central thesis of this essay is that many cultural issues are being labeled as racial ones, and it is becoming difficult to differentiate.

In the 9/8/14 edition of the Atlanta Journal Constitution there is a front-page article about how the Atlantic Hawks basketball team owner sent out an e-mail two years ago, that is now being considered racist in tone, implying that the owner, Bruce Levenson, is a racist.

When one reads his e-mail it is clear that it does not meet the criteria for a racist missive. However, he has been dramatically traumatized by the public and media reaction, calling for his dismissal, prompting him to sell his interest in the team. It is apparent he would prefer not to do this, but the pressure to do so is enormous.

Before getting into the specifics of the e-mail it is useful to evaluate and define both race and racism.

For our purposes, we will use the Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary. The reader may use other definition resources, but in this matter, it is useful to use this one, because it is perhaps the best representation of what the greatest minds in language analysis have to say. The racism issue demands clear, logical, rational thinking. Anything else will most likely compound the problem, with which humankind has continually struggled.

First, the word “race” has a complex definition. Race denotes 1) “a group of people related by common descent or heredity; 2) a population so related; 3) Anthropology: a) any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. It is b)“an arbitrary classification of modern humans sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on genetic markers as blood groups. c) a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, who members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans…” 4) a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race. 5) any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

Thus, we can see that race identification is a complex issue. Moreover, before one can cry “racism” we must understand what goes into race. In the early twentieth century in America, African Americans were called “ Negroes” or “colored people,” with “black” or “African American” now being the preferred terms. Many people believed that all people from Africa were the same, sharing the same physical characteristics, mentality, social behavior, cultural values, etc. However, that was not true, because the first African Americans slaves came from a large continent, from many tribes, with many different physical, social, and individual differences. They were conveniently lumped together in the minds of the African and European slave traders, who saw them only as commodities to be bought and sold in the Americas for profit. Their differing skin colors, height, facial features and other physical, mental and social characteristic were often ignored, probably to ease the consciences of the slave traders, and convince themselves that the slaves were all the same, and what they were doing was legal and moral. This was supported by the fact that slavery had been practiced by almost all cultures since humankind’s earliest times. If the early slave traders could “lump” all Africans into one category, then they could treat them all the same, as benefited their purposes.

Complicating this racial classification system even further is the work of molecular evolutionary biologist, Masatoshi Nei, whereby he has developed what he calls “The Neighbor-Joining Method,” which demonstrates that all humankind arose from the Negroid race initially, followed first by the Caucasoids, leading to the Australoids, the Mongoloids, and Amerindoids, in that order. His classification system is currently the latest that science has to offer, but further research will likely prove that even this will likely prove to be too simplistic.

Within Dr. Nei’s findings we find many subtle nuances of race. Representing Caucasoids are the fairer people of Scandinavian and the rest of Northern Europe; the “olive-skinned” people around the Mediterranean; Northern Africans who do not identify themselves as Negroid; people of India, who are Caucasoids, with often very dark skin, but with Caucasoid features. Then there are the Australoids, composed of the Aborigines of Australia and the New Guineans. The Mongoloid people of Asia, Polynesia, and Micronesia have varying degrees of Mongoloid features. Then there are the “racially mixed” people of Asia and Europe, some of whom are descendents of the Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan invaders, as they took liberties with the women they conquered. In addition, there are the Amerindoids–Native Americans, or Indians, as we are used to calling them, who look different from their Asian ancestors. And what about the racial mixing that went on with the Vikings, as they invaded areas all the way down to Turkey, then to Greenland and Iceland? Some Vikings even made it to Middle America and intermixed with Indian tribes from Wisconsin before moving out to the Dakotas.

Can anyone say that there is a “pure race” anywhere? It does not appear so. In fact, all humankind can be genetically traced back to tribes now living in lower Africa.

A professional counselor friend, who had 34 years experience working with disabled clients of all races, recently offered me a new conception of race that helps us take a more accurate view of the race issue. Using skin color only, he offers the following concept:

1 2 3 4 5

Darkest Skin Moderately Dark Lightest Dark White Lightest White

If we view the various peoples on Earth as having these skin colors—with varying degrees of color in between—then we have a continuum of skin color running from 1 to 5. The darkest will be some Africans and Native Australians. At number 2 we have some lighter-skinned people from northern Africa and India. Number 3’s will be Asians, Mediterraneans, Middle Easterners, and Native Americans. Number 4 will be most Europeans and white Americans. Number 5’s are Scandinavians. Of course, we all know it is not as simple as this, because all countries will have variations of skin colors. Additionally, over the centuries there has been extensive racial/skin color inter-breeding–to the point that these prehistoric differences are gradually disappearing. For example, anthropologists estimate that about 70% to 80% of so-called African Americans have some white ancestors–and sometimes Native American forebears. Many Caucasoids have all sorts of “mixes” themselves.

Thus, it is easy to see that this whole racial thing is almost complicated beyond understanding. Yet our modern social mores are inclined to reduce this complexity down to black-white-yellow-red. (One has to wonder where we got that box of crayons!) But, most seriously of all, upon what rationale are some people justified in placing some Negroids at one end of the above continuum and Caucasoids at the other end? In this world, there are many Caucasoids who have darker skin than some Negroids, with all sorts of skin color variations occurring within each category. Where does anyone get the authority to separate one group from another by “drawing a line,” saying that all on the left of the line are “black,” and all on the right are “white.” And where does one draw the line in the first place? Where is the line placed when you pass a law that says Affirmative Action applies to African Americans because they have dark skin. The question then becomes, “How dark do they have to be? Where on the continuum does black stop and white (or other color) begin? Or that Native Americans are entitled to certain benefits because of their race. What about those Wisconsin Indians who inter-bred with Viking explorers and moved to the Dakotas? What color are they?

Thus, we can see that “race” is a scientifically difficult term to use when viewing the diversity of humankind. And it is a fact that about 80% of African Americans now living in America have white genes—if they didn’t have some already before the were enslaved in Africa and brought to America. Confusingly, President Obama is half white, yet he claims to be African American. Does he defer his mother’s Caucasoid genes to that of his Negroid father? Why not the reverse? And Tiger Woods is half southeast Asian on his mother’s side, and Negro, Caucasian and American Indian on his father’s side, and has been known to call himself “Casblanasian!”

An interesting question about all this is why people tend to lump themselves and others into the concrete categories of Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, and Amerindoid, when we are all various mixtures of many races. This author is of Welsh, Irish and German descent, but heaven only knows what admixtures went to make up those ancestors. The reason we select these concrete categories for ourselves is because in the simpler times of the past people did not know—nor could they comprehend—these divisions of people, and it still suits our needs to cast people into simple categories.

Now that we have slain the “race dragon” and shown how spurious a word it is, let us examine the term “racism” and apply it to today’s situation in America. Our dictionary defines “racism” as: “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or human achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.” It is “a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. It often involves hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”

So let us see what it takes to be a racist. First, we must have evidence that there are different races on which to direct our prejudices. But we have demonstrated that this is shaky ground in these days and times, because the race issue is so muddled. However, many political leaders and others continue to approach this issue as if it were cut and dried. People, like the Klu Klux Klan, affirmative action advocates, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, some congresspersons, and the general public continue to view humans in this fashion. Since they are obviously not scientific thinkers, they live out deceived lives and lump humans into these rigid categories. Also, the people in each category do it to themselves—often for individual psychological benefit—or detriment– to themselves!

Racism needs more than just skin color on which to activate itself. Historically, intelligence differences have been imagined. European whites thought that most Negroid Africans were deficient intellectually, because they were still living a relatively primitive existence, thus they were justified in making them slaves or using them for their own, more “noble,” purposes. Also, they were viewed as culturally deficient, as they had written no great operas, made little scientific progress, or developed “proper” religious systems. However, psychology has now demonstrated that intelligence levels in all races are equally distributed, and any differences are attributed to cultural and educational factors. A Bantu tribe in Africa has the same percentages of high IQ’s as do American citizens.

Also, racism requires hatred or unease with other races. Yet, discomfort or lack of understanding of the cultural differences of other is not hatred; it is usually dislike of different behaviors—therefore, it is a stretch to call it racism. We need another term to describe such behavior; perhaps discomfort with other peoples’ behavior and traditions is the real culprit. Could we all have varying degrees of cultural phobias?

What we are dealing with in America now are the cultural wars going on between the black and white cultures. To be sure, there are other conflicts: married with children vs. unmarried with children; poor vs. the rich; upper class vs. the lower class; the educated vs. the less educated; conservative vs. liberal; the sophisticated vs. the good old boys; eastern establishment vs. the heart of America; congress vs. the president. The list goes on and on.

But this essay was prompted by the Atlanta Hawks situation, which is a microcosm of the larger issue that is inciting Americans today, specifically the black vs. white culture war. And if you don’t believe such a thing is going on, you must have just arrived from the planet Mongo! The reality of this “war” is secondary to the perception of the conflict. However, to explore this further we need to try to separate the facts from opinions.

In his e-mail, Levenson makes the following points about the Atlanta Hawks franchise:

1) Attendance at games is 70% black.

2) The cheerleaders are black.

3 The music is hip-hop.

4) Patronage in the bars it is 90% black.

5) There are few fathers and sons at the games.

6) The after-game concerts are either hip-hop or gospel.

Knowledgeable basketball people that I know and respect, say that Mr. Levenson’s points are true to a large degree. There are other factors also, but these are the most pertinent There are certainly no after- game concerts featuring Bach concertos or country music, catering to people of white northern European extraction. How many black people would attend such concerts? How many white people will frequent a bar where black culture is foremost. (Why do most whites move to the suburbs?) Blacks and whites tend to avoid those social gatherings where they are in the minority, especially bars. Churches in America are among the most segregated institutions, and this is on a voluntary basis.

The after-game concerts are designed to attract attendees, but, culturally speaking, few whites will attend such concerts, simply because that is not their kind of music. However both races would attend outdoor fireworks.

Probably the most important point is the father-son issue. In America today, about seventy percent of young African American boys have no father in the household. While many of the African American males who attend Hawk games do have sons, they do not seem to be bringing them to the games. Historically speaking, a father taking a son to a sporting event is one of the most powerful motivators in engaging a son’s interest in that sport. How many African American fathers do we see taking their sons to golf tournaments, soccer matches, tennis tournaments, swimming meets, etc. For some cultural reasons these fathers are not taking their sons to see the Hawks; and whites, being in the minority, are staying away. Interest in sports among boys and girls usually starts at a young age, influenced by parents and peers, but black children do not seem to be a part of this at Hawks games. Perhaps economics is contributing to this; are Hawks game tickets so expensive that black fathers cannot afford to take their children?

All sports fans know that the NBA is now dominated by American American players, and apparently their affiliated culture has become dominant. Now, there is nothing immoral or wrong about that; it’s just that all concerned need to be open about this and recognize it for what it is. This is also happening in the National Football league. It is for complex social, economic, and cultural reasons why this division has developed, and I do not think that the African American community wants to see it continue to the extreme, for if it did it might increase racial tensions in our country, when our efforts in the past half century have been to successfully integrate our society. One basketball coach calls the NBA the new “plantation,” though a voluntary one—owned by rich white owners. As a counter argument to this trend, suppose the NBA, the NFL, or MLB were dominated by any “race.” What would that accomplish as we struggle to heal the racial issues that have been bequeathed to us by the blindness and avoidance of all those Europeans and Africans who started the slave business and brought it to Americas, and those who nurtured and used it to their own benefit?

Consider the following: Hispanics prefer soccer over other sports in America; African Americans have a strong affinity for basketball and fishing; America’s deer hunters are predominately white; golfers are mostly white, with Asian women becoming more prevalent on the LPGA Tour; Japanese like baseball and golf; most tennis players are white; shuffleboard players are mostly white and live in retirement communities in Florida; the pro bass tour is almost all white; how many black lacrosse players have you seen; ice skaters are white, as are bobsledders, skiers, and other winter sports enthusiasts; college girl volleyball teams are predominantly white. The list goes on and on, but the main point is that different racial groups select sports and other activities to engage in, based on complex cultural, individual, and economic reasons. If you are a black kid in the ghetto, seven feet tall, with excellent athletic ability, guess what sport you will most likely excel in. If you are a strong-armed white kid who can throw a baseball through a fence, I do not think you will pick golf as your main sport. All people select their sports in which to participate or watch based on their talent, opportunities, economics, interests, peer and parental influence, among other subtle factors. Moreover, as we have just seen, different races and groups gravitate to different sports. In America today, African Americans predominate in basketball.

So, what should we make of this, or more specifically what should the Hawks and other NBA teams do if the teams and their fans become predominantly black. Obviously, they must give their fans what they want. That is just good old capitalism. If black fans want black players, hip hop sound, black cheerleaders and other black cultural benefits, that’s what they should get, which would guarantee that most of the fans are going to be black. If Mr. Levenson wants a racially mixed crowd, reflecting the general population in America, then he should compose his team and cheerleaders with 13% blacks, and the rest with whites and others. However, I do not think such a team would be competitive in the NBA, and then no one would come to the games.

Basically, this dispersion of the different races in the different sports is a large social phenomenon, which is beyond anyone’s control. In our land of opportunity, individual choice is still the way we choose. And it looks like black Americans like basketball, so the rest of us need to accept this and factor that into our individual lifestyle equations.

It appears that Mr. Levenson is not a racist, but is simply a man who likes basketball, and was trying to figure out how to get more white people into the games—especially if the black folks are not selling out the games. I will bet that if each game was sold out with all black folks, he would be delighted.

Now, let me digress a little. When I joined the US Air Force in 1955, which was integrated in 1947 by President Truman, the percentage of African Americans on the bases at which I was stationed was about the national average: 10-12% black, and the rest white, Hispanic and Asian. While we worked together, the black airmen chose to socialize together. There was no overt animosity about this, as all considered this their freedom to choose. Some whites and blacks were assigned to room together, without any problems. I had a black roommate for about a year and we got along fine—except we did not socialize together during our free time, with both of us spending our time with those with whom we shared similar culture and interests.

Moreover, culture is the key here—and is the main point of this essay. For example, when I first came into the US Air Force in 1955 I noticed something that was very disconcerting to my white colleagues and me. Many of the African Americans would use the expression “mother fucker” when expressing anger about various things. This was very shocking to a southern boy from Florida, who was raised in a middle class household, where the worse curse word ever heard was an occasional “damn,” and that not very often. The “N” word was never used in my home. African Americans were referred to by their names, or as “negroes,” or “colored people.” So imagine my shock at his new obscenity. It made me seriously evaluate my relationships with my African American colleagues. Alternately, none of the white airmen—from all parts of the country–ever used this expression, and we secretly ridiculed them for using it. It was taboo to whites, and drove a small wedge between the two races. This was a part of their culture in which we could not participate. However, over the years, sadly, certain elements of the white culture have begun the use of this obscenity, which does not speak well for either group.

In his book, Coming Apart, The State of White America, Charles Murray proposes the thesis that America is subdividing into different classes and cultures, primarily based upon the former middle and upper classes incorporating the values and behaviors of the lower classes. Specifically, much of the white American culture is adopting these standards, and now both groups are becoming more alike in thought, word, and deed. Single parent, female- dominated families, with boys having little male influence in the family as they mature, is a prime generator of this division. In response, the whites that cling to their old values flee to the all-white suburbs, while African Americans tend to cling to the inner cities, with many young African American males over-identifying with sports, as opposed to academic achievements. This phenomenon is also occurring in other sports in varying degrees, with the exception of golf, where African Americans are very under represented.

In the past thirty years, Atlanta, Ga. has become a Mecca, for African Americans, giving anecdotal evidence of their desire to live together, showing how much they want to maintain their identity and control, similar to what whites, Asians and Hispanics strive for. All this suggests that the desire of different races wanting to live together is some fantasy concocted by certain progressive thinkers. Most large cities have always had their Chinatowns, Vietnamese communities, Hispanic sections, little Italys, as well as African American sections, and others. It is apparent that each racial group’s first inclinations are to maintain its identity and culture—until many generations have passed and natural integration takes place. However, history has demonstrated that the tendency is for like groups to ban together for as long as they can.

For example, in the 1970’s I met an African American couple who were living in a home in a southeast Atlanta, all white neighborhood. They confessed to me that they were hired by the NAACP to move into a white neighborhood, to “bust it,” so to speak, opening the door for the NAACP to begin the process of converting Atlanta into a primarily black city, with black political control of all aspects of the city. This couple said that, after their stay in Atlanta, they were being sent to Miami to repeat the process. I had no reason to doubt this couple, and what they were initiating has happened. Of course, this was perfectly legal, and only demonstrates how groups want to preserve their uniqueness. But the question is—if the black couple was telling me the truth—why would the NAACP have such a goal if racial inclusiveness was what they wanted. Of course, I accept that they may have overstated the mission of the NAACP for Atlanta, interjecting their own personal desires, but it still illustrates the tendency for most folks to want to live with their own kind. And that is cultural, not racism.

Once I attended a statewide rehabilitation training conference, where the participants were about 70 percent white and 30 percent black. We were all employees of a government agency charged with helping handicapped people go to work. We were thoroughly integrated, in both classroom attendance and sharing rooms at night. On the second day at lunchtime, everyone was eating in the large college cafeteria, sitting at large round tables that seated about ten people. As I left the serving line, I looked for a place to sit, and soon spied an empty seat at a table where all the diners were African American. They were very animated, talking and laughing together. Since I knew these folks, I decided to eat with them and enjoy our togetherness. Asking to join them, and getting polite but reserved permission, I sat down and began to eat. Suddenly it got very quiet and all the animated conversation ceased. Soon the silence got very awkward and I felt like an unwelcomed outsider. I attempted to engage in conversation, but it was clear I did not belong in the social context they had established for themselves. I finished eating and left as soon as possible. It was obvious to me that much of racial separateness was voluntary.

There’s another thing that most of us have noticed, but few talk about. When we look at married couples and those who are intimate among the different races, it appears that people bond with those of similar shades of color and features. An examination of educated, black couples shows they often marry those of similar skin color, certain facial and body features, and other aspects that are sexually attractive to them. And what’s wrong with that? White and Asian folks do the same. It is evident that most people are attracted to those of their own race, but within each race there can be wide variation. A white client of mine, when discussing his attraction to women, said that brunette’s “turned him on” the most, with blondes coming in second, light-skinned African Americans next—but he had no interest whatsoever with light-skinned, red-headed, white women! When I questioned him where those desires came from, he had no explanation, just that he had always had been that way.

Thus it is clear that while race and racism are still realities, the bigger issue we must deal with is the ramifications of the ramped up culture wars.

In recent years, diversity has been promoted as the means to handle America’s increasing cultural problems. With the millions of illegal Mexican immigrants and legal immigrants from all parts of the world, problems in handling the different languages and customs have prompted political correctness attitudes upon the established American public by forcing them to adjust to the new immigrants, as opposed to the immigrants doing the adjusting, as was done in the past. Spanish, French, German and other languages are often on new househol appliance manuals, whereas in the past English was the established language. For example, when one has problems with various consumer products, call-center assistance is usually located in India, where the assistants are often difficult to understand because of their thick accents. The increase in new immigrants is causing adjustment problems for everyone. However, the onus seems to be on Americans to make the needed changes, which many resent, leading to animosity—and sometimes racism—by the ones forced to adjust to the new people.

Good or bad, diversity is upon us. So how are we going to deal with it?

Getting back to the establishment of our government under the US Constitution, America had diversity and cultural problems even then. We had Torys and Whigs, city dwellers, frontiersmen, farmers, tradesmen, speaking the different languages of Europe. The difference was that eventually they had to adapt to English, which had become the established language.

Thus, there evolved a common American way of doing things: speaking and writing English, laws based on English common law, European architecture and business procedures, etc. Before the Constitution was developed, the founding fathers studied Greek, Roman, Viking, Jewish, Christian, and other philosophies and history, in an attempt to form a government that would benefit from all knowledge that mankind had gained up until that time. The Bible presented common ground that glued much of the country together. All of these factors were instrumental in forming a country that became unified around common values.

The exception to this was slavery, which had been introduced into the two American continents two hundred years before, mainly by our aforementioned European and African traders and developers. Thus, slavery was firmly entrenched, and was part of the fabric of the society, despite the fact that most people knew it was wrong. But many people were dependent on the economics of slavery, so it endured until our Civil War. Because of the sociology of slavery, the African American culture was slower to assimilate into the “common ground” than was the rest of the country, which was predominately of white, European descent.

Despite this impetus toward a cohesive country, the genius of the founding fathers was to develop a constitution that allowed all these diverse groups to be able to maintain their individuality and old ways, while also emerging to become a part of the new American system. Thus, a Chinatown was permissible as long as it adhered roughly to the general consensus. And all individual groups were like this. Each state could go its own way as long as it complied with the Constitution.

Therefore, America is a country made up of many different cultures of complex diversity, which are nonetheless recognized and accepted as long as the citizens follow the Constitution and obey the laws. This gives us a nation of wide diversity, continually struggling to become unified, and this diversity is to be tolerated as long as it complements the Constitution. We are a nation of laws and must remain so. But lately we have become too tolerant of lawbreakers, who break down the communion with our nation’s purpose.

How should we deal with all this? A good beginning would be for all sides to be open to discussion about the issues without crying racism. Just because I want to discuss the problems in the black community does not make me a racist. Moreover, if people want to discuss the sins of white America, that is fine. However, all sides need to do their psychological, sociological, and economic research, get the needed facts, then get to the core issues and determine viable positions and solutions. Right now “political correctness” seems to be the catchword that obscures solutions and promotes maintaining dysfunctional diversity. Human nature, being what it is, will continue to flounder along with hits and misses, as we strive for understanding and solutions.

Nevertheless, the racism wars need to end, and we must to get on to finding new solutions and building a country with which we can be even more proud.