Racism in america has changed from the belief of a general superiority in one's own race, to holding prejudices and beliefs about other cultures that those culture's might not like. Of course, in a country filled with differing people and creeds, a completely fair-minded person with regards to race is impossible. There will be prejudices between different cultures. I don't mean the typical stereotypes between races, but the little things that people believe about other cultures.
In today's poltically correct environment, a stereotype must always be false. One can not have an image of a black person as a thug without being labeled a racist, nevermind that this particular stereotype holds the kernel of truth that more black young men are uneducated and criminally viable. You see, it is easy to take the position that stereotypes make assocations with all races, and therefore, to hold a stereotype like this, one often is derided for believing that all black young men are criminals. The error in this is that stereotypes never do create an assumption that all members of their class are equivalent to the stereotype.
Stereotypes and prejudices are formed through experience which can never be said to be complete, and therefore, all stereotypes will only reflect the majority of experience one has with members of a class. Following this, it is easy to see why stereotypes of black men are of the thuggish and criminal variety. One should note, however, that these stereotypes can not be combated through any poltically correct means. Politicaly correct shaming does not change the experiences people have with any class.
It is sad, but in order for a class to change it's perception in the world, it has to change itself. Today, it is considered racist to believe that the majority of african americans are lesser educated and more likely to be associated with criminals, despite that in my experience, the majority of african american people I have had experience with has somewhat reinforced this stereotype.
Of course, there are those that do not reflect the sterotype. There are many that do not. However, it is the nature of a stereotype to reflect the general average, and not fully describe in exact detail an entire population. The results of this are that those members of a class that do not conform with the classes generally received image are met with surprise, befuddlement, and even hostility from others attempt to put the members "in their place".
And yet, there is hope, because behavior only has a loose causal connection with class. Therefore, the more outliers there are in a class, the more the general perception of that class starts to shift. We can already see this with the inclusion of african american people in media roles contrary to standard african american images.
Now, the roles that members of particular classes take in media usually represents the general stereotypes with which they are associated with, but the frequency with which certain classes appear in media gives an indication of the general importance that class has on society at large. Importance, of course, being simply the measure of how often general society as a whole considers, thinks of, or focuses on that class group. It is possible then, to find how much a certain group is on the general populace's "radar" by measuring the relative frequency with which that group appears in media consumed by the audience composing such a mental "radar." This is often due to the fact that creators of media generally wish to appeal to certain subsets of society, or society at large. These creators often intuit an approximation of their target audience's tastes and prejudices.
Given this, it is fair to say that an increase in educated african american youths will result in a general increase in educated african american's being represented in the general media. Of course, media often has the effect of reinforcing behavioral changes when viewed by the class that the media supposedly represents. The reasons for this are psychological and beyond the scope of this document.
In any case, my original point was that there seems to be a general consensus of media stereotypes as portraying racist images and prejudicial notions of that group. The prevailing method of attempting to combat these believed attacks on particular minority classes has been through fines and legislative action. It is my belief that the only thing this has achieved is the rise of the "angry black man" stereotype, simply through the new experiences people have of minority classes trying to oppose these media stereotypes.
I propose, then, that while preventing discrimination through legislative action has the positive effects of legal representation and general employment, it also has the decidedly negative effect of freezing ethnic stereotypes. This is because by enforcing the law of nondescrimination, pressure is taken off of the individual to inform their decisions regarding those from other cultures through personal experience, and thus ethnic classes are more encouraged to persist in their ethnic stereotypes and not adapt their ethnic behaviors to the advantage of other classes having a more positive view of them. It is through thus, that because different classes do not need to assimiliate in order to be accepted, they do not.
A prime example of this is the difference in assimilation between different european peoples, who were once considered quite distinct cultures, into the general category of "white". Naturally, the degree of difference between two cultures will translate into a longer amount of time transpiring before complete assimiliation. If memory serves, before the civil rights movement, there was a great consensus and appreciation for the american "melting pot", after which, ethnic diversity was suddenly more valued. And certainly it was that it should be more valued, for each citizen of a different ethnic circle had legal backing to preserve their own culture and heritage.
Now, the effects of the civil rights movements are notwithstanding with regards to whether enforcement of legal equivalence and rights is to be accepted as a laudatory achievement. The simple truth is that with the civil rights movement of the 1960's, america turned onto a path that divides citizens into ethnic groups much more than it unites them. This effect is well felt today, with the proliferation of census categories with which one can identify, ultimately resulting in a simple "write in your race here" option on the census.
It is of course, not possible to determine the trajectory of America's ethnic values if the civil rights movement had not occured. Much likely is the possibility that the more assimilated classes would have continued to dominate, and the less asasimilated classes would have been more forced to assimiliate to gain acceptance in wider culture, a procees that quite likely, would have been long and filled with strive for the classes seeking to assimilate, but not without residual effects on the more assimilated classes. Indeed, with each new group assimilating into an older, larger group, the entire consensus as a whole will take on characteristics of both. It is therefore reasonable to assume that white culture would not have been the same as it is today, given that qualities of other cultures would have "bled" into the mainstream.
This, of course, is very interesting to contemplate. I don't believe, however, that civil legislation regarding ethnic discrimination will be repealed, of course. Whether this sets a course for eventual assimilation, or the further shattering of our social structure remains to be seen. Through all this, one thing remains true: United we stand, Divided we fall.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Speak.