[Neurons] 2014 "Neurons" Meta Reflections #51

[L. Michael Hall]

From: L. Michael Hall

Meta Reflections 2014 #51

December 22, 2014

 

CRITICAL THINKING

RACE AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

 

We humans talk a lot about race.  It seems to be in the news a lot.  It
seems to be a common subject, although at times it can be a hot subject and
even politically incorrect subject to even talk about.

“We need more understanding between the races...”  “Racial relationships
have recently been improving ...  “With the shootings, racial relationships
have suffered are at a new low.”  “Check on the form below your race— White,
African, Hispanic, Asia, Slavic, etc.”  “I wouldn’t bring that up, it is too
hot as a racial issue.”  “There’s too much racial discrimination, we need to
have less of that and more sense of equality.”

 

In the last few weeks, the media in the US has made ‘race’ a dominant issue
over some instances that were not really about race.  It began as the media
framed the Grand Jury decisions in both Missouri and in New York as “racial,
racially motivated, shows racism, demonstrates centuries of racism,” and so
on.  Yet the so-called ‘race’ of the two individuals who died in these cases
was incidental to the reason they got into a conflict with the police in the
first place.  In both cases, the person could have been from any ‘racial’ or
social class. In both instances, if the persons had just cooperated with the
police, no one would have died.

 

Defining the conflict and deaths as about ‘race,’ of course, make for more
sensational news.  In the Missouri case, there’s hardly anything newsworthy
of a common criminal resisting arrest, wrestling with a cop, and making
things worse for himself.   Trying to turn that into a civil rights issue of
‘racial discrimination’ is stretching things for the sake of media
promotion. 

 

All of that got me thinking about the term.  So what are we talking about?
The term ‘race’ itself is actually a pseudo-word if what we mean by it is
that there are different races on this planet.  Why is that?  Well, because
there are not multiple races.  On Planet Earth, there is just one race— the
human race.  The human species.   So because it does not reference anything
that’s actual, then all of the talk about different ‘races’ is ultimately
nonsense.  Wikipedia writes the following about ‘race.’ 

“Race is a social concept used to categorize humans into large and distinct
populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic,
geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation.
First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote
national affiliations.  In the 17th  century, people began to use the term
to relate to observable physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits.  Such use
promoted hierarchies favorable to differing ethnic groups.  Starting from
the 19th century, the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote
genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype. ...
the scientific community ... argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic
significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same
species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.”

 

So ‘race’ does not actually mean different species.  We are all of the same
race!  That’s why any form of discrimination is just basically wrong.
“Race’ does not mean ‘race’ as in different races.  To use the term in that
way as naive and simplistic as it is wrong and mis-leading.  Yet we
constantly use the term, so we must be referring to something.  But what?
What are we actually talking about?  What are we referring to?  What is
actually present that we can see and hear or smell and touch which we call
‘race?’

 

Since we are all human, all Homo sapiens, and all of the same species, since
our DNA are the same, and so much so that it readily intermingles unlike
different species of animals, the differences we are highlighting are not
actually racial.  So what are they?  In a word, we are actually speaking
about cultural differences.

 

We are actually referring to a social concept.  The differences are
differences in how people greet each other, talent, their accent, how they
value some things and dis-value other things, what they eat, how they eat,
the architecture they create, their music, art, language, etc.  When a group
of people all share an unique culture and biologically all share some family
traits— skin color, eye shape, nose, body shape and size, etc. —this is what
we identify as a ‘race.’

 

Yet this ‘race’ is not limited to just people born there, those who share
the biological history of that group.   We can take a baby from any
so-called ‘race’ and put that baby in another ‘race’ and that child will
grow up to take on all of the traits of that ‘race.’  She will greet others
as that ‘race,’ value and dis-value, eat, talk, act, relate, etc. as that
adopted ‘race.’  All of the central distinguishing ‘racial’ features which
we tend to focus on— will be learned and adopted.  If the external factors
are close enough to the adopted ‘race’ that person will probably not be
identified as other.  All except some of the most superficial ones— skin
color, family traits of eyes shape, nose, body shape, size.

 

Sometimes this can create some shocking experiences.  I have met people who
originated in Africa centuries ago who have been living in England for
generations and who think, talk, act, greet, and for all purposes are
British except the color of their skin.  Or French, or Australian, etc.
Culturally, or ‘racially,’ (to use the term that is currently being used),
they have learned a very different way of life.  A few years ago I had to
readjust my thinking of Chinese when we had Philippino Chinese, mainland
China Chinese, Hong Kong Chinese, and Malaysia Chinese all at the same
training.  Biologically they shared a similar history, but they way they
talked, they way they acted, related, interacted, valued things, emoted,
etc. was very, very different.  It was as if they were different ‘races.’
And if by ‘racial’ we really mean cultural, then they were.

 

‘Race,’ as a term, is also a word that has been so incredibly
over-generalized.  We talk about the black race, for example, but what black
race are you speaking about?   Are you speaking about Africans?  Nigerians,
Kenyans, African Americans, Southern blacks, urban blacks, middle class
blacks, upper class, British, Jamaican, etc.  Or if you talk about the white
race, what white race are you speaking about?   Caucasians, Jewish, Irish,
German, etc.

 

Because every culture values numerous things, the question for any given
culture is: What is valued?

Is it family, inheritance of wealth, secular education, moral education?  Is
it study, hard work and  effort,  discipline?  Or is it being rebellious?
Is it being traditional?  Cultures (read ‘race’) is built around such
things.

 

Because the term ‘race’ is more of a pseudo-word, maybe a metaphor about
culture, it is possible, even common, to think of it in degrees.  We can
think in terms of “How much are you of this or that ‘race?’”  It was often
said in the campaign and then presidency that Bill Clinton was the first
Black President, they said that because he was ‘black’ in his values and
policies.  Then when Obama was elected President, there were those on the
left who said, “He is not black enough.”  And in the matter of intermarriage
among the various ‘races,’ the question comes up about how much is one of
this or that ‘race?’   If a person is ½ or 1/4 or some other degree of some
other racial heritage, then what are they?  This has caused confusion about
what ‘race’ one is, does one check White or Black; Hispanic or White,
Chinese or Black, Irish or Dutch, Japanese or Russian, etc.?  Does it count
at all when one is 1/16 or 1/32?

 

The bottom line is that these are not actually ‘race’ questions, these are
questions about family traits and culture values.  What many police actually
profile is not the so-called ‘race,’ they profile cultural
characteristics—if a person walks, talks, displays certain cultural
characteristics— they might look like a hoodlum or criminal.  Are they?  We
don’t know.  But if someone looks like, acts like, presents oneself in that
way—that might be a person to check out, alias ‘profile.’  That strikes me
as good precaution.

 

To profile merely the color of one’s skin is a waste of time and an ignorant
choice.  It’s not the color of the skin that determines behavior, it’s one’s
character.  So if we want an efficient way to figure out who is more likely
to commit crimes or acts of terrorism, we have to look much deeper and in a
different area.  Color of skin is far too superficial of a feature.  Martin
Luther King Jr.’s vision was to move beyond such superficial features to
more important features— one’s character.  ‘Race’ is not the issue—
character goes to culture and values.  These are the critical issues. 

 

What should we do?

Treat all people with respect as human beings worthy of our attention and
honor.

Don’t discriminate on superficial things like color, origin, social status,
wealth, age, etc.

Discriminate by character.  Profile those who show in the way they act and
talk that they are capable of behaviors that disrespect others— who are
ready for violence against those who disagree with him or her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

                Neuro-Semantics Executive Director 

                Neuro-Semantics International

P.O. Box 8

Clifton, CO. 81520 USA                             

                1 970-523-7877 

                Dr. Hall's email:
<mailto:meta at acsol.net\hich\af31506\dbch\af31505\loch\f31506> meta at acsol.net


    

    

What is Neuro-Semantic NLP?

Neurons:  Get your free subscription to the weekly International \Post on
Neuro-Semantics by Dr. L. Michael Hall. Subscribe at:
wwww.neurosemantics.com 

 

    Solutions:  Sign up for the Neuro-Semantic Newsletter --- wwww.
<http://neurosemantics.com/newsletter> neurosemantics.com/newsletter. 

 This is a monthly newsletter for anyone new to Neuro-Semantics.  Femke
Stuut, Editor.

 

Coaching: For world-class Coach Training — The Meta-Coaching System:
www.meta-coaching.org and \
<http://www.metacoachfo/hich/a/hich/af31506/dbch/af31505/loch/f31506%20f3150
6/dbch/af31505/loch/f31506%20undation.org/hich/af31506/dbch/af31505/loch/f31
506/hich/af31506/dbch/af31505/loch/f31506> www.metacoachfoundation.org.
Meta-Coach Reflections sent every Wednesday to the group of Licensed
Meta-Coaches.

 

Self-Actualization: Neuro-Semantics launched the New Human Potential
Movement in 2007, for information about this, see
<http://www.self-actualizing.org/> www.self-actualizing.org  

 

NSP --- Neuro-Semantic Publications: Order books from Neuro-Semantic
website,  <http://www.neurosemantics.com> www.neurosemantics.com  click on
Products and Services and then the Catalogue of books.  Order via paypal.  

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist8.pair.net/pipermail/neurons/attachments/20141222/9516ee17/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 81552 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://pairlist8.pair.net/pipermail/neurons/attachments/20141222/9516ee17/attachment-0001.png>