Glenn asks, " As much as I want a future where our collective racial history won’t weigh so heavily on our self-understanding, I wouldn’t want a future in which we’re completely divorced from that history and the traditions it has birthed. Can we really keep those traditions alive in the private sphere without feeling their effects, howe…
Glenn asks, " As much as I want a future where our collective racial history won’t weigh so heavily on our self-understanding, I wouldn’t want a future in which we’re completely divorced from that history and the traditions it has birthed. Can we really keep those traditions alive in the private sphere without feeling their effects, however subtly, in the public sphere?"
The answer is transcendently simple: of course we can't; nor should we. We cannot separate & segregate our understanding of the world. We can only try to not allow our natural predilections, our inherent preferences, our likes and biases to significantly & unethically influence our decision making when it comes to hiring, firing, promoting, critiquing, electing, and recommending the Other.
I, as a for instance, have a special fondness for red-headed women. As a category I find myself more naturally attracted to them. In fact, I'm married to one of them. I have, as they say, 'history & traditions' with red-haired women and I absolutely plan on keeping those traditions gloriously alive in the private sphere as much as I can.
And yes, at the same time, I feel their effects even in the public sphere.
The difference is, I'm well aware of my built-in bias in that regard and I make a special effort to NOT allow that bias to dictate my decision-making. (In any way, that counts). I may favor the red-head girl's checkout line at the grocery store (because I think, quite naturally, that she's cute)....I may select a Nicole Kidman film more often than not...but when it comes to hiring, firing, promoting, or praising I'm particularly careful to separate my evaluation of a performance or a candidate from my natural leanings towards redheads. I would hope & expect that Glenn & John do the same, re: Blackness.
Glenn suggests that, "we would have to keep race in the public sphere in order to keep it out of the public sphere." But this is simply not true. In order to keep public universities from being racially biased in admissions, you don't need to track race, you simply need to stop counting it at all. Remove it from the admissions forms the same way we've removed any mention of Irish Ancestry or whether one is a Star Trek Fan. Wait...you mean Irish Ancestry & Fan Affiliation has NEVER been a box checked on admissions forms? Fancy that?!
Glenn tells us, "The question is whether or not black people are going to have an opportunity to elect a representative of their choice." The answer is self-evident. Of course they will...the same way white people, brown people, red & yellow people all have an opportunity to elect a representative of THEIR choice. Whether that opportunity produces any particular victorious candidate is an entirely different question that only a total vote count answers ... but everyone who votes has that opportunity.
Glenn's actual concern is much narrower, though, as he additionally asks, "(whether) the race of the elected official matches the race of the person casting the ballot." The answer should be: who cares? I certainly don't. I've never cared whether the color, the sex, the age, the generation, the height, or the weight of the elected official matches mine in any way at all. Why should I? When we elect a representative we want them to represent OUR INTERESTS not our skin color or genital configuration. And to assume that everyone who shares a demographic marker ALSO SHARES my interests is both insane and racist/sexist. Of course they don't. I'm surprised, actually, that Glenn would even ask that question.
Mr. Hughes goes on to tell us, "I think in general in life, you should think about your privileges. You should think critically about them." But what the heck is privilege anyway?
We might say that whatever we have which is unearned is privilege, I suppose. Certainly skin color is an unearned quality. But so is height. So is beauty. So is grace. So is everything contained in the genetic luggage handed us by our parents at conception. And so is the life we walk into at birth: our parents' economic condition, our house, our brothers & sisters, the neighborhood, the church, the schools, our families, the music we listen to. None of these things WE earned; rather they were all given or made available to us. I suppose, per Mr. Hughes, we should think critically about all of that. But .... equally we might think critically about our burdens, the various crosses we all carry (that we did not earn or somehow deserve)...and then net out the good & bad and see where we end-up.
But honestly, doesn't that sounds like an immense waste of time & effort to arrive only where we began, feeling both bitter and pleased (I don't have that...but I do have this?!....grateful and envious?).
Perhaps we'd be better off if we simply made an effort to understand that every single one of us has MORE than someone else....AND every single one of us has LESS than someone different. As children we tend to celebrate the one (Yay! I'm faster, taller, prettier, stronger....) and bemoan the other (Booo! I'm slower, fatter, uglier weaker....). But as adults, isn't it time to put these childish things away?
The question is not difference / advantage. The question is: what are you going to do with what you have, whatever that is.
John asks, "Suppose a white person says, “I like my people.” The answer is 'So what?' Who cares? Why does it matter? We can choose as friends anyone we wish. That can look anyway they like. Thank God the State has nothing to say about any that. Thank God we don't have DIE Friendship Mandates.....or Demographic Diversity Targets for Dating.
The problem that we're finally beginning to recognize: neither should we have them for anything else....as Mr. Hughes, I believe, understands.
Glenn asks, " As much as I want a future where our collective racial history won’t weigh so heavily on our self-understanding, I wouldn’t want a future in which we’re completely divorced from that history and the traditions it has birthed. Can we really keep those traditions alive in the private sphere without feeling their effects, however subtly, in the public sphere?"
The answer is transcendently simple: of course we can't; nor should we. We cannot separate & segregate our understanding of the world. We can only try to not allow our natural predilections, our inherent preferences, our likes and biases to significantly & unethically influence our decision making when it comes to hiring, firing, promoting, critiquing, electing, and recommending the Other.
I, as a for instance, have a special fondness for red-headed women. As a category I find myself more naturally attracted to them. In fact, I'm married to one of them. I have, as they say, 'history & traditions' with red-haired women and I absolutely plan on keeping those traditions gloriously alive in the private sphere as much as I can.
And yes, at the same time, I feel their effects even in the public sphere.
The difference is, I'm well aware of my built-in bias in that regard and I make a special effort to NOT allow that bias to dictate my decision-making. (In any way, that counts). I may favor the red-head girl's checkout line at the grocery store (because I think, quite naturally, that she's cute)....I may select a Nicole Kidman film more often than not...but when it comes to hiring, firing, promoting, or praising I'm particularly careful to separate my evaluation of a performance or a candidate from my natural leanings towards redheads. I would hope & expect that Glenn & John do the same, re: Blackness.
Glenn suggests that, "we would have to keep race in the public sphere in order to keep it out of the public sphere." But this is simply not true. In order to keep public universities from being racially biased in admissions, you don't need to track race, you simply need to stop counting it at all. Remove it from the admissions forms the same way we've removed any mention of Irish Ancestry or whether one is a Star Trek Fan. Wait...you mean Irish Ancestry & Fan Affiliation has NEVER been a box checked on admissions forms? Fancy that?!
Glenn tells us, "The question is whether or not black people are going to have an opportunity to elect a representative of their choice." The answer is self-evident. Of course they will...the same way white people, brown people, red & yellow people all have an opportunity to elect a representative of THEIR choice. Whether that opportunity produces any particular victorious candidate is an entirely different question that only a total vote count answers ... but everyone who votes has that opportunity.
Glenn's actual concern is much narrower, though, as he additionally asks, "(whether) the race of the elected official matches the race of the person casting the ballot." The answer should be: who cares? I certainly don't. I've never cared whether the color, the sex, the age, the generation, the height, or the weight of the elected official matches mine in any way at all. Why should I? When we elect a representative we want them to represent OUR INTERESTS not our skin color or genital configuration. And to assume that everyone who shares a demographic marker ALSO SHARES my interests is both insane and racist/sexist. Of course they don't. I'm surprised, actually, that Glenn would even ask that question.
Mr. Hughes goes on to tell us, "I think in general in life, you should think about your privileges. You should think critically about them." But what the heck is privilege anyway?
We might say that whatever we have which is unearned is privilege, I suppose. Certainly skin color is an unearned quality. But so is height. So is beauty. So is grace. So is everything contained in the genetic luggage handed us by our parents at conception. And so is the life we walk into at birth: our parents' economic condition, our house, our brothers & sisters, the neighborhood, the church, the schools, our families, the music we listen to. None of these things WE earned; rather they were all given or made available to us. I suppose, per Mr. Hughes, we should think critically about all of that. But .... equally we might think critically about our burdens, the various crosses we all carry (that we did not earn or somehow deserve)...and then net out the good & bad and see where we end-up.
But honestly, doesn't that sounds like an immense waste of time & effort to arrive only where we began, feeling both bitter and pleased (I don't have that...but I do have this?!....grateful and envious?).
Perhaps we'd be better off if we simply made an effort to understand that every single one of us has MORE than someone else....AND every single one of us has LESS than someone different. As children we tend to celebrate the one (Yay! I'm faster, taller, prettier, stronger....) and bemoan the other (Booo! I'm slower, fatter, uglier weaker....). But as adults, isn't it time to put these childish things away?
The question is not difference / advantage. The question is: what are you going to do with what you have, whatever that is.
John asks, "Suppose a white person says, “I like my people.” The answer is 'So what?' Who cares? Why does it matter? We can choose as friends anyone we wish. That can look anyway they like. Thank God the State has nothing to say about any that. Thank God we don't have DIE Friendship Mandates.....or Demographic Diversity Targets for Dating.
The problem that we're finally beginning to recognize: neither should we have them for anything else....as Mr. Hughes, I believe, understands.