This is not going to be a Bible study, but I needed to make a point. If we tell people something that we believe to be helpful, but it is an idea that they are not used to hearing or supporting, then we may have hell to pay. The problem is that if wise and reasonable people don’t stand up for what they believe can ultimately help everyone, then for many who are already socially disenfranchised, there will be more hell to receive. It’s time to consider “stepping outside the box” of conformational thinking. The Race Privacy Initiative is a case-in-point.
The Race Privacy Initiative (RPI) bans the state of California from classifying people according to race, ethnicity, color or national origin. According to Mr. Connerly, “by helping California government stop obsessing about race, RPI will unite us to create a colorblind state for our children and grandchildren, one that is more respectful of the inherently private and complex nature of racial identity.”
Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? NOT to many in the black community, whose loudest opponents frequently and often excoriate Connerly, the Race Privacy Initiative’s chief architect and proponent.
At a Friday meeting of the Catfish Club recently, San Diego’s Deputy Mayor, George Stevens vigorously warned that adoption of the Race Privacy Initiative would essentially erase all social progress that has been made since slavery was repealed as the law of the land. Mr. Stevens was passionate and sincere in the presentation of his beliefs. However, they were preposterous and irrational.
To assert so strongly that adopting a policy that seeks to remove racial distinctions would return social conditions to that which existed during slavery, is to immediately render one’s argument discountable. It presupposes that black people have absolutely no power of their own, no ability to influence the continuation and maintenance of progress that has already been made, and the furtherance of said progress on their own. It suggests that the real power lies in government, not in the people that the government is supposed to serve, but not nurture. As a government servant, I imagine that Mr. Stevens is trying to do his job. That is commendable, but neither he, nor government, can “be there” to protect everyone. And government is supposed to serve and preserve the rights everyone, equally… not stand as referee of one group against another.
What was more disturbing is that some of the people in attendance actually clapped in support of his position. None of them -- myself included -- offered a dissenting point of view. In the absence of a spectrum of viewpoints that are welcomed and respected, people will assume that the loudest, emotional voice, is actually rational. That would be the quickest way to stay where we are… meaning appearing to get farther “behind” on the “Great Grading Curve of Life Lessons."
The USA Patriot Act includes many provisions that have increased the government’s powers of surveillance, wire-tapping, search and seizure, and other measures designed to “remove obstacles to investigating terrorism.” The problem is that in so doing, all citizens can be targeted. Their privacy can be examined without benefit of due process or reasonable probable cause. We have to ask ourselves, how far do we want to pendulum of injustice to swing in the other direction? Or do we simply want justice for all?
So here comes the Racial Privacy Initiative, which in essence is attempting to remove one of the wedges (of race) that human beings sometimes use to justify their attitude toward another group of human beings who are perceived to be fundamentally different. It empowers government officials to continue thinking that they know how to make us live together better than we do.
This same type of thinking applies to taxation initiatives, such as proposals for taxes on soft drinks that contain sugar, and on a proposed 50¢ per gallon fuel tax, and 2¢ per mile usage tax to stimulate a move toward hybrid or electric vehicles. By not looking at the whole of what our government is doing, we stand a great risk of indeed going backwards in time… not toward slavery, but toward a more socialist, and even communistic form of society, with less individual or personal freedom.
Abolitionists fought and died to end slavery when the government was the chief enforcer of that social system. Now black people are fighting each other to keep the government in the position of making it easy to focus on injustice, when in truth, the best way for a significant number of people to get beyond injustices, is to begin focusing their attention and energy on succeeding at their individual hopes and dreams.
Instituting the Race Privacy Initiative will not change the “racial make-up” of anyone. It will not change history. But it may indeed change the future. The RPI will make it harder for the government “bean counters” to classify people in racial boxes, but this might be the catalyst that individuals need to begin being “just” with each other as a matter of course, because it is the right and best thing to do. We need not make our sense of fairness and respect toward people dependent on their color. While this should be an obvious truism that could go without saying, many people, from all shades of the color and culture spectrum, practice such conditional respect. They look for, and expect to be disrespected, while being disrespecting themselves. Then, when someone is indeed disrespectful toward them, they cry fowl, run to a government agency that will step in to monitor, if not take over the case. Another corner on the not-so-merry-go-round is made. It is familiar ground… too familiar.
I am neither for, nor against the Racial Privacy Initiative. However, I am against social, educational, scholastic, and political double standards. As long as a person believes that the color of their skin, or ethnic and cultural heritage make them de facto victims of oppression, that will automatically go to the “back of the bus,” the “bottom of the list,” “out in the cold,” then they will certainly be prime candidates. It used to be a given at one time in this country, but not today… unless one is willing to live that way. It need not apply to anyone who is determined to do better than that.
To justify its continuing encroachment on the personal freedoms of every citizen, and to justify the increased costs that such encroachment will indeed incur (leading to higher taxation from those who can least afford it), the government needs enough people who are of a “needy” mentality. It needs citizens who don’t believe that they can stand on their own, fend for themselves, and peaceably make their own way. Although this is not really true of black people, or of any person, enough noise reliably comes from that particular constituency to keep politicians -- of all colors -- working that “wedge.” The problem is, that by so doing, they help maintain the status quo. Let’s try something else. Certainly, let’s stop denouncing people just because they have a different point of view.
Long ago it was written “one is never a prophet in his (or her) own home.” This truism was written in reference to the indifference that was shown to Jesus of Nazareth in his early days. His ideas didn’t really gain notice until he left the familiar confines of his homeland. The passage below sums it up:
“Although the original church was made up primarily of Jews, most of the nation of Israel rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah, and the Jewish priests and teachers were particularly hostile to Him. In the Talmud (an ancient rabbinic storehouse of law, wisdom and commentary) Jesus is described as both a sorcerer and an apostate.”1
Until then and throughout his life, Jesus’ message of love and compassion fell on deaf ears. The message seems to be, “Beware to the bringer of different news.” Jesus admonished people to love: not money, power, or status, but each other. He said to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and “love your neighbor as yourself.” Really radical stuff in those days. Really radical stuff today as well.
We can contrast Mr. Stevens’ orations to those given by four high school students at an awards ceremony given April 27, 2002, by the Pazzaz Organization (www.pazzaz.org). The students spoke eloquently against further government intrusion into our personal privacy via the “USA Patriot Act” (H. R. 3162), which was passed by Congress on October 25, 2001 as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th. While these were black students, they are to be commended because they spoke against the dangerous intrusion against the personal privacy of all American people.
1 Excerpted passage from I’d Like to Believe in Jesus, But… by Bob Siegel (1999, Campus Ambassador Press).
Adam Abraham is author of I Am My Body, NOT! (www.iammybodynot.com) and A Freed Man: An Emancipation Proclamation (www.phaelos.com/afm.html). For more information, send an email to phaelos@yahoo.com.Also by Adam E. Abraham:
When the Reality of Race Oneness Sets In
Favoring Meaning Over 'Ease'
It’s Not the ‘Ism’ Anymore
Calling for More Good Change
Putting the Spirit of ‘Us vs. Them’ to Rest
Notes from a ‘Political Expatriate’
Allowing the ‘Miracle’ of Change
To the Birth of I Can
Focus On Humanity
A Wonderful and Not So 'Silly' Dream
Musings of a Philosopher: Or When 'Silence' is No Longer 'Golden'
 |
 |
©2002 all rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited without
the express written consent of Interracial Voice.