TORONTO, ONTARIO - As a white person that grew up in a substantially white suburb, it was difficult to truly relate to the significance of the events in Washington, D.C. today. Tens of thousands of African-Americans cried, wept, and cheered, saying that the sacrifices of their parents and grandparents and generations before had finally paid off in an African-American taking office in the most powerful and respected position in the country. They were intermixed with tens of thousands of people of other backgrounds who were equally excited by new president Barack Hussein Obama and his words heard around the world on this day.
Interestingly, Washington D.C. in a very real sense provided my first exposure to the realities of race in America. The number of African-Americans in my classes in elementary school and middle school could be counted on one hand. I had one elementary school teacher that was Black, but she never talked about her race; she was just our teacher (and a good one, at that). Asians and Latinos were more numerous, but again any substantive difference on the basis of race was never discussed.
In middle school, I had the opportunity to travel to the national Mathcounts competition in Washington D.C. For the first time, I saw an area in which literally half of the residents were African-American. I had never seen anything like it before, but it wasn't any different than seeing the Washington Monument--I had read and seen on television that large numbers of Black people existed, and now I had seen them in person.
One day, while riding Washington's Metro subway system, I was careless with my backpack. In approaching my seat, I moved such that the backpack was flung right into the face of a man in a suit on an adjacent seat. It hit him hard enough that it actually knocked his glasses off. As statistics would predict in Washington D.C., the man happened to be Black. I apologized; the man said he was okay and soon got off the subway. For the remainder of the trip, I was worried that I would forever be tagged as a racist because I had nearly injured a Black man on the Washington Metro. That such an act had nothing to do with racism was something that at the time I had no way to understand.
Eventually, I would have more significant interactions with African-Americans. In my undergraduate years, I had my first boss at a part-time job that happened to be Black. I had a roommate one summer who was a football player that happened to be Black. Each of them actually talked about what it meant to them to be of something other than the race of the majority, and I started to better understand the social context of race and what a day in which a non-white would become the President of the United States might mean.
Yet, I'm not certain that the blatant ignoring of race that occurs in Washington state was so bad from an educational perspective. I wasn't taught that people of "other" races were in any way different than I was, and my early experiences actually served to reinforce that idea--none of the African-Americans I met through high school seemed significantly different than anyone else around me. Some coverage of racial experience in high school instead of waiting until college probably would be wise, but the baseline experience--at least in a place like suburban Seattle--probably did more to prevent the genesis of a racist perspective than any formal instruction could have done.
Now, above all, it may be role modeling by President Obama that leads the way in educating young people about how African-Americans are not fundamentally different than anyone else.
Showing posts with label This Is One World. Show all posts
Showing posts with label This Is One World. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Philosophy: "The Farm" Arrogance
TORONTO, ONTARIO - I sometimes get very frustrated when I read the Stanford University Alumni magazine "Stanford". It's not that I don't think highly of Stanford. In fact, the best times of my life so far took place while I was living "on the farm," as the campus is colloquially known. It's that sometimes the writing in the magazine reminds me of the people one encounters on campus that think Stanford is the greatest place on the planet and that the whole world should be like Stanford.
I'm not sure I disagree all that much with their first premise, though I suppose I'd like to see better cuisine at "the greatest place on the planet," better surrounding geography than "the dish" (a satellite dish that rests on a hill visible from a surprising proportion of the campus), and maybe a better transportation system in and out when one actually has to leave. Yet, even if it probably isn't the "greatest" place, it's a very good place. In the final analysis, people should think the place they live is the greatest place whether it is or not anyway, right?
It's the arrogance and lack of realism in the second premise that has always rubbed me the wrong way. First of all, the world can't all be like Stanford because its population is self-selected. Through student admissions and job interviews, the university effectively chooses who it wants to be there, and then those that come to be there get to perpetuate the selections. I don't have a problem with how that process occurs (How could I? They let me in!), but that can't be done in the real world. In a broader community, the people that aren't desired in a given place can't just be told to cease to exist. They have to be somewhere, and right there, by definition, wherever they are will not be like Stanford. Stanford has become what it is by virtue of its selectivity. The world cannot be so selective, short of an ethical code that I wouldn't spend one second contemplating.
Furthermore, this idea that the world should all be like Stanford is in conflict with the very commitment to diversity that makes Stanford what it is. In order for Stanford to be such a great place, it has to bring together people from stunningly different backgrounds--those from East Los Angeles and Hollywood, Israeli Jews and West Bank Palestinians, rural farmers and inner-city renters. If the rest of the world were all like Stanford, "the Farm" could not exist!
There are plenty of other arguments against trying to turn the world into Stanford, but there's one other aspect that strongly annoys me. It is simply arrogant of people of this mind-set to suggest that the rest of the world should want to be like Stanford. There are other great universities in the world--some, like the University of California at Berkeley, aren't even that far away. While I personally would rather be at Stanford than Harvard or Oxford or Berkeley, I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with someone that prefers Princeton, the Max Planck Institute, or Foothill Community College. Those institutions have plenty to offer to the world, and I don't want them to change in a way that would diminish their unique character.
Part of the reason that Stanford can foster such an attitude is that it physically is isolated from the rest of the world more than an average university. The main portion of campus doesn't spill out into a surrounding community as at most North American universities. Instead, the Stanfords very consciously placed the campus about a half-hour's walk or more inside the property that they owned. In fact, the story goes, when Palo Alto--whose downtown area now sits just down Palm Drive from the main entrance to campus--started allowing saloon-type businesses that the Stanfords did not approve of, they decided not to build Palm Drive and instead built roads radially from the main quad toward the surrounding communities of Menlo Park and Mayfield (which was later annexed by Palo Alto and is now known as the California Avenue area of Palo Alto). Only after Palo Alto established more control over the atmosphere in its downtown area was Palm Drive upgraded and the radial streets faded away, with only traces remaining today.
The reason that this seemingly-benign love of Stanford bothers me so much is that the attitude is paralleled in the United States at large. Americans seem to think that their country is the greatest country on the planet, and that every other nation should want to be like the United States. Again, it's hard to take issue with the first premise. While the Chinese, Swiss, Brazilians, and just about every other nationality on the planet including Canadians would argue with that, there's nothing wrong with thinking highly of one's own nation.
The problem is the second premise. The arrogant view that the world wants to become the United States not only offends many people across the world, but has led the United States to pursue misguided policies like trying to impose US-style democracy on Iraq in hopes that it would take over the Middle East. Maybe someday all of the world's nations will have representative governments of some kind, but the US needs to look no farther than Canada and Mexico to see that other styles of government can function just fine.
To a large extent, the United States has a self-selected population, native peoples and forced slaves excepted--it wouldn't exist if not for the rest of the world. As with Stanford, the physical isolation of the United States, oceans away from most of the rest of the world and bordered on two sides by substantially peaceful nations not all that different than itself in a broad view, helps to foster arrogance. Many Americans haven't experienced the greatness of other places or had any opportunities to interact with foreign people to understand how others' preferences might be different than their own.
In the end, we are all world citizens whether we want to be or not. There is a great deal of diversity in the world, and we should experience, celebrate, and foster the aspects of that diversity that we come to appreciate. Only because of that diversity can special places like Stanford University and the United States exist. No matter how much we like them, we should be humble about them, not arrogant.
I'm not sure I disagree all that much with their first premise, though I suppose I'd like to see better cuisine at "the greatest place on the planet," better surrounding geography than "the dish" (a satellite dish that rests on a hill visible from a surprising proportion of the campus), and maybe a better transportation system in and out when one actually has to leave. Yet, even if it probably isn't the "greatest" place, it's a very good place. In the final analysis, people should think the place they live is the greatest place whether it is or not anyway, right?
It's the arrogance and lack of realism in the second premise that has always rubbed me the wrong way. First of all, the world can't all be like Stanford because its population is self-selected. Through student admissions and job interviews, the university effectively chooses who it wants to be there, and then those that come to be there get to perpetuate the selections. I don't have a problem with how that process occurs (How could I? They let me in!), but that can't be done in the real world. In a broader community, the people that aren't desired in a given place can't just be told to cease to exist. They have to be somewhere, and right there, by definition, wherever they are will not be like Stanford. Stanford has become what it is by virtue of its selectivity. The world cannot be so selective, short of an ethical code that I wouldn't spend one second contemplating.
Furthermore, this idea that the world should all be like Stanford is in conflict with the very commitment to diversity that makes Stanford what it is. In order for Stanford to be such a great place, it has to bring together people from stunningly different backgrounds--those from East Los Angeles and Hollywood, Israeli Jews and West Bank Palestinians, rural farmers and inner-city renters. If the rest of the world were all like Stanford, "the Farm" could not exist!
There are plenty of other arguments against trying to turn the world into Stanford, but there's one other aspect that strongly annoys me. It is simply arrogant of people of this mind-set to suggest that the rest of the world should want to be like Stanford. There are other great universities in the world--some, like the University of California at Berkeley, aren't even that far away. While I personally would rather be at Stanford than Harvard or Oxford or Berkeley, I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with someone that prefers Princeton, the Max Planck Institute, or Foothill Community College. Those institutions have plenty to offer to the world, and I don't want them to change in a way that would diminish their unique character.
Part of the reason that Stanford can foster such an attitude is that it physically is isolated from the rest of the world more than an average university. The main portion of campus doesn't spill out into a surrounding community as at most North American universities. Instead, the Stanfords very consciously placed the campus about a half-hour's walk or more inside the property that they owned. In fact, the story goes, when Palo Alto--whose downtown area now sits just down Palm Drive from the main entrance to campus--started allowing saloon-type businesses that the Stanfords did not approve of, they decided not to build Palm Drive and instead built roads radially from the main quad toward the surrounding communities of Menlo Park and Mayfield (which was later annexed by Palo Alto and is now known as the California Avenue area of Palo Alto). Only after Palo Alto established more control over the atmosphere in its downtown area was Palm Drive upgraded and the radial streets faded away, with only traces remaining today.
The reason that this seemingly-benign love of Stanford bothers me so much is that the attitude is paralleled in the United States at large. Americans seem to think that their country is the greatest country on the planet, and that every other nation should want to be like the United States. Again, it's hard to take issue with the first premise. While the Chinese, Swiss, Brazilians, and just about every other nationality on the planet including Canadians would argue with that, there's nothing wrong with thinking highly of one's own nation.
The problem is the second premise. The arrogant view that the world wants to become the United States not only offends many people across the world, but has led the United States to pursue misguided policies like trying to impose US-style democracy on Iraq in hopes that it would take over the Middle East. Maybe someday all of the world's nations will have representative governments of some kind, but the US needs to look no farther than Canada and Mexico to see that other styles of government can function just fine.
To a large extent, the United States has a self-selected population, native peoples and forced slaves excepted--it wouldn't exist if not for the rest of the world. As with Stanford, the physical isolation of the United States, oceans away from most of the rest of the world and bordered on two sides by substantially peaceful nations not all that different than itself in a broad view, helps to foster arrogance. Many Americans haven't experienced the greatness of other places or had any opportunities to interact with foreign people to understand how others' preferences might be different than their own.
In the end, we are all world citizens whether we want to be or not. There is a great deal of diversity in the world, and we should experience, celebrate, and foster the aspects of that diversity that we come to appreciate. Only because of that diversity can special places like Stanford University and the United States exist. No matter how much we like them, we should be humble about them, not arrogant.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Margin Notes: Elections, One World, Guilt
TORONTO, ONTARIO - I thought I heard a quote on the CBC's The World This Weekend on Saturday night that might have been taken out of context, so I looked it up. Also according to the Toronto Star and others, Stephen Harper really did say “What we know about voting patterns across the country generally is that less and less people you know kind of vote for their grandfathers, right? They basically vote on what they think their needs are and how they think the parties are responding in this election.” Granted, he was speaking descriptively rather than prescriptively, but he's saying that voters are becoming more individualistic and selfish and are not only not thinking less about society, but less about even their other family members. Doesn't he think there's anything wrong with that?!? What about voting for the sake of one's children and grandchildren? Canadians, keep thinking for the good of society, and not narrow selfish wishes--dare I say it--like Americans!
* * * * * *
In the vice-presidential debate in the United States on Thursday night, many people couldn't help but notice that Republican Sarah Palin's body language--especially all the winking she was doing--was straight out of a beauty pageant. In fact, Palin's background as Miss Wasilla and runner-up to Miss Alaska in 1984 seems to surface fairly regularly. Why did she give virtually non-sense answers to Kate Couric during the now-infamous interview, and appear to have more confidence than content during the debate? Beauty pageant contestants are rewarded for keeping their poise in all circumstances and saying something, even if there isn't much content behind it. Basically, beauty pageant contestants are rewarded for spin--and Sarah Palin learned her lessons from those experiences, perhaps too well. It seems that she can't transition from beauty contestant to substantive politician on the national stage.
* * * * * *
I have contemplated if there is anything significant about the fact that John McCain has surrounded himself with "Beauty Queens" in the form of his wife Cindy and running mate Sarah Palin. While Palin may not be rising above her past, Cindy McCain most certainly is a woman of substance--whether I agree with her views or not--so I'm not certain that it says much about John McCain. I think he fits right in with many Americans and their emphasis on appearance.
* * * * * *
On last weekend's God Talk on San Francisco's KGO Newstalk 810, host Brent Walters stated that contrary to some teachings, "In all western traditions, God never deals through guilt; God only deals through encouragement... Guilt only cripples us." One doesn't need to have religious faith to recognize the truth in the latter sentence.
* * * * * *
For those that aren't familiar with Paul Harvey's "This Is Not One World" features on the radio, he includes them in his commentary broadcasts in an attempt to demonstrate that the United States is better than the rest of the world. Often, they are bizarre interpretations of news stories, to the extent that I've long-felt some counter-point was needed, because like it or not, there is only planet for all of us and there are more ways in which we are all similar than different.
In the "This Is One World" Department: The Christian Science Monitor quotes Ozlem Sandikci of Bilkent University as stating that "Across the Muslim world, there are numerous signs that Ramadan... is transforming from a religious month to a cultural and commercial holiday." In an article focusing on Turkey's Ramadan fast-breaking Iftar dinners, Monitor correspondent Yigal Schleifer notes that they are resembling "gala events" instead of religious ceremonies. I hope they don't invite Stephen Harper...
* * * * * *
In the vice-presidential debate in the United States on Thursday night, many people couldn't help but notice that Republican Sarah Palin's body language--especially all the winking she was doing--was straight out of a beauty pageant. In fact, Palin's background as Miss Wasilla and runner-up to Miss Alaska in 1984 seems to surface fairly regularly. Why did she give virtually non-sense answers to Kate Couric during the now-infamous interview, and appear to have more confidence than content during the debate? Beauty pageant contestants are rewarded for keeping their poise in all circumstances and saying something, even if there isn't much content behind it. Basically, beauty pageant contestants are rewarded for spin--and Sarah Palin learned her lessons from those experiences, perhaps too well. It seems that she can't transition from beauty contestant to substantive politician on the national stage.
* * * * * *
I have contemplated if there is anything significant about the fact that John McCain has surrounded himself with "Beauty Queens" in the form of his wife Cindy and running mate Sarah Palin. While Palin may not be rising above her past, Cindy McCain most certainly is a woman of substance--whether I agree with her views or not--so I'm not certain that it says much about John McCain. I think he fits right in with many Americans and their emphasis on appearance.
* * * * * *
On last weekend's God Talk on San Francisco's KGO Newstalk 810, host Brent Walters stated that contrary to some teachings, "In all western traditions, God never deals through guilt; God only deals through encouragement... Guilt only cripples us." One doesn't need to have religious faith to recognize the truth in the latter sentence.
* * * * * *
For those that aren't familiar with Paul Harvey's "This Is Not One World" features on the radio, he includes them in his commentary broadcasts in an attempt to demonstrate that the United States is better than the rest of the world. Often, they are bizarre interpretations of news stories, to the extent that I've long-felt some counter-point was needed, because like it or not, there is only planet for all of us and there are more ways in which we are all similar than different.
In the "This Is One World" Department: The Christian Science Monitor quotes Ozlem Sandikci of Bilkent University as stating that "Across the Muslim world, there are numerous signs that Ramadan... is transforming from a religious month to a cultural and commercial holiday." In an article focusing on Turkey's Ramadan fast-breaking Iftar dinners, Monitor correspondent Yigal Schleifer notes that they are resembling "gala events" instead of religious ceremonies. I hope they don't invite Stephen Harper...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)