What about the idea of racism? It's bad, right? We'll take the racism of Whites against Blacks as an example. Racists are prejudiced against other people simply due to the color of their skin. That's unfair and wrong. Skin color has to do with how much melanin is in one's skin; the level of melanin in a person's skin is no basis for a judgment of their person or a reason to look with disfavor or hate on them.
Should the government criminalize racism? It depends. The government should criminalize racism of the type that leads to groups of White citizens hanging Blacks. However, there are other types of racism that do not meet the harm requirement. Some people see Blacks with disfavor because they are Black. This will affect their choices in employment, housing, and other areas. As citizens conducting their private lives with their own property, however, not giving someone something does not meet the harm principle. People are not (should not be) obligated to rent to, employ, or otherwise deal with anyone (excepting binding contracts and the like). People should be free to dislike, hate, ect. other people, as long as their views do not advocate inflicting harm on them.
So, am I saying the government should not take a stance on racism? No, absolutely not. Remember equality before the law. Government should be against all racism in all its actions, not favoring or penalizing based on skin color. However, the government should not criminalize its citizens racism and racist actions--as long as they do not inflict harm on others or have something that strongly encourages the inflicting of harm on others.
As someone who remembers the time of segregation with some of its most obvious results: no black or brown children sharing a hospital ward or room with a white child (this limited the number of black children admitted to the hospital at any given time [harmful?]), 'colored people' hired for the most menial of jobs only (I never saw a black RN,doctor,or in any other position of authority [most likely because of the lack of opportunity for the education for those higher end jobs] and harmful(?) to the aspirations of those few black children who were there) - the only time a black person could do even an LPN's work was if and only if they were short staffed and they there was no other choice for the job to be done), black employees always having to all but curtsy any time a white adult spoke to them ("yes Mam", "no Sir") always having to keep a proper distance, especially from white children and young white female nurses (harmful to a man's own self image?), etc... I saw all this during the early 60s when I was a patient at Shriner's Hospital in Greenville, SC. Granted, there were some exceptions, i.e. the obvious respect and/or fondness that some whites expressed to black employees even to a child of 6-8 years old, but still, the dark skinned people dared not cross the unspoken lines. During the latter 60s, when the marching, etc. had begun I did notice that blacks seemed to feel more free to express their thoughts and/or gesting comments, but still, no black doctors or RNs on site. I was in and out of that hospital from age 6-13 and in total spent about two years of my childhood as an inpaient there. I never saw a black person 'harmed' unless one might call feelings of inferiority, degradation and embarrassment on a few occasions 'harm' - there was also the ever present element of those few whites who made themselves feel superior if only by intonation, etc. to black employees and patients. Personally, I found a middle aged black janitor to be one of the kindest, most gentle spirited and wiser than all employees there in regard to knowing how to comfort (with caring words of concern) children who were far away from home and sometimes desperately homesick. By the late 60s I was old enough to better understand the 'why?' of many things I'd wondered about: segregation, social cruelties, bussing issues, who Martin Luther King was... Change came subtly, in part because (I believe) there was a need at that time for affirmative action - it probably is no longer needed and is possibly even impeding to justice, especially in some parts of our country (tho' I doubt that is altogether true in the deep south).
ReplyDelete(cont.) My conclusion in the form of a question: Did it not require a governmental action to wake even caring white people from their slumber in regard to how black people (as American and equal as whites and other minorities) were treated in general in regard to educational opportunities, job opportunities and access to decent, even pleasant housing if affordable? Much as "Uncle Tom's Cabin" awoke many to an awareness they had oft closed their eyes to? Most prejudiced white people I then knew were far to busy with more important things than reading (if they could read). Television images also helped to make the masses aware of how low some people would stoop to block blacks from anything but status quo. Still, Tim and I stopped attending a church in Oklahoma in 1976 when we found out that black people were not welcome there because of the fear that it might lead to inter-racial marriages -what a farce of Christian love! That many years later than MLK Jr.'s death and well over a hundred years after the Emancipation! Yes, prejudice will always be here in some form; it's part of fallen man's condition. Perhaps my great-grandchildren will be of a white minority which cries out for equal opportunities. I think you acknowledged that there has in the past been a need for AA but your assessment is that it is no longer needed.(?) I would think in terms of a place by place scenerio even at present. Even in the northern south I am still frequently amazed at the ignorance and foolish pride that breeds prejucie and its effects. Perhaps the better government requirement would be basic educational curriculum in regard to the fact that it is indeed genetics and culture that makes us different but not less. - Debra Lovell Adkins
ReplyDeleteNo, it did not require government intervention. Government should have only stepped in when there was positive harm inflicted on someone, anyone.
ReplyDeleteI never meant to imply that affirmative action was necessary. I don't think it ever is.
I disagree with public education. Giving certain individuals a basic educational curriculum means taking citizens' money away from them by force, and that is unconstitutional, I do believe.
Thanks for the comment(s)!