The Race

Ok, guys; is there discrimination based on appearance?  Sure.  Tall men vs. short, blonde girls vs. brunettes, muscular teens vs. skinny, stylish  vs. not, and the list goes on.

The underlying issue is the question of personal worth.  Are some 'better' than others?

In the 17th century, we began to talk about 'race' in terms of people being part of this or that distinct lineage.  The early concept offered five racial types; Caucasian, Malay, Indian, Mongol, and Negroid.  Soon, discussions of race began to include the concept of races being distinct and unrelated species with suggestion of natural superiority and inferiority.  E.g., Caucasians are a species that is unrelated to the Negroid species.

From early on, though, science understood that the differences were more cultural and geographic than anything else.  In 1775, "... Blumenbach also noted the graded transition in appearances from one group to adjacent groups," and suggested that "one variety of mankind does so sensibly pass into the other, that you cannot mark out the limits between them".^[1]

Disappointingly, science and folklore merged in the following decades to accommodate our prejudices.  Perhaps some folks needed to see themselves as inherently superior, intellectually and morally.

The resulting ideology (prevailing thought) was that 'race' was tied to a point of origin from the past, retaining its distinct behavioral and intellectual characteristics, and that 'race' determined innate worth.  That's nonsense, anthropologically speaking.  Don't say that in public; it's often still the prevailing thought whether conscious or subconscious.

"As an American of Northern European 
(Nordish) ancestry who loves my race 
and wants it to be preserved...."
The scholarly article cites arguments and
references supporting the 'my race'
compared to 'your race' perspective.
Each argument has been previously
resolved to the satisfaction of the
science communities, but the article's
author attributes each to liberal 
'political correctness' rather than 
objective science.  The author
defends racial separation as an ethical
concern suggesting that multi-racial
societies are diluting the white race.

Our differences are real; they are -
  cultural/
   experiential/
    geographical/
     ideological/
      kindergarten-leftovers/
        and grandma's-cooking-habits.
And we look different too, but that part has nothing to do with intellectual capacity, ethical clarity, or intrinsic value within a community or society.

What are the chances that you and I hold unconscious attitudes and stereotypes? Of course we do.

Scientists agree there's little doubt that hate-filled racism is real, but a growing body of social science research[ref][ref] suggests that racial disparities and other biased outcomes in the criminal justice system, in medicine, and in professional settings can be explained by unconscious attitudes and stereotypes.  E.g., police cadets are more likely to shoot unarmed black men than they are unarmed white men.

And interracial marriage was illegal in the U.S. until just fifty years ago. 

Anti-Irish racism in Britain and the United States included the stereotyping of the Irish as alcoholics, and implications that they monopolised certain (usually low-paying) job markets. They were often called "white Negroes." Throughout Britain and the US, newspaper illustrations and hand drawings depicted a prehistoric "ape-like image" of Irish faces to bolster evolutionary racist claims that the Irish people were an "inferior race" as compared to Anglo-Saxons.^[ref] 

There is emerging clarity in the discussion these days, but there's much yet to be done if we're to be an educated citizenry.  We should challenge our own thinking.  If you want a straight answer on the subject of race, objectivity is the most important and perhaps most difficult component.  Ask a real scientist and labor through the analysis yourself.  Race is only an issue to the inadequately informed.

With that being said, what are the real issues as we learn to share the world we live in?

The earliest forms of prejudicial discrimination (proto-racism) weren't based on color or appearance but were generally tribal or lineage distinctions.

Such discrimination persists today in cultures that retain strong tribal identities.  In Kenya, for example, the Kikuyu are the ruling class;  the Mijikenda and many more are ineligible for most opportunities for education, employment, and political office solely on the basis of lineage.  The distinctions and conflicts are expressed in business and politics, and not uncommonly, in violent upheavals.

Adding to the difficulties, tribes existed long before the national boundaries which now attempt to contain and govern them without their consent.

Seen from a distance, it's not unlike the rich vs. poor in the western world.  Or pretty vs. plain, or this side vs. that side of the railroad tracks.   

As has often been said, it is all just wrong in so many ways.

COM vs GOV vs ORG

Great kid's movie; anything important in there
about life? ...

... a good path, a good end, and a good conscience?  

Perhaps the best revelation of modern game theory and organizational economics is that productive labor relationships only work well over a long-term, good-faith pathway.  The participants must get to know and trust each other. As in a marriage, the employer and employee are motivated to do the right thing not because of an immediate reward or simple self-interest but because their values and goals are aligned, they anticipate remaining together for the long haul and achieving good outcomes.  There's an issue of mutual conscience that is satisfied in such a relationship.

From the children's story, an
extraordinarily important issue,
and even more so in today's
business environment ...

Simply said, "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"  "Do two people walk hand in hand if they aren't going to the same place?"

Those of us blessed with the opportunity to work are aware of the choices.  We hope to serve with a good heart to a good end, and with people of like mind.  

How is it going with your employer?  Is it taking you where you, in good conscience, want to go?  In it, can you serve well and to good purpose? 

Perspective

If you had to make it on $25k/yr, where would that put you on a world scale? (Top 2%)

At twice that amount, the median U.S. household income is stunning at around $50,000, with one or perhaps two wage earners.

Friends in Kenya; it's grasshopper season, so the
kids are out with sticks to catch a few.
If their families take in $800/yr,
they're above the median
in the community.
They're normal
in this world.

And what about the rest of the world?

Is there insight here that might help us shape our own lives and priorities?
  
What do we teach our children about such things as wealth and privilege?

Just how big an issue is this anyway?  Should I be be concerned?

Words

A few days down the road, or a decade, little that was said is remembered.

At work, at home, at school, on the road, we have opportunity every day.

That includes today, as my wise wife reminds me.  Got a goal for today?

OK so making the graphic was entertaining. 
It's my father's legacy, "Talk less, do more."

President's Choice

In the U.S. capitol, our president was dissatisfied with the food service, so he brought in a chef and culinary staff from his home state.

The chef orchestrated elaborate banquets at the presidents home until a problem arose.  Uncle Harkless (or Hercules, as he was known) was a slave, and the law in Pennsylvania required slaves to be freed after six months of residence.  The nation's capitol being in Philadelphia at the time, President George Washington was obliged to set Hercules free, but instead he sent him back to Mount Vernon along with the other kitchen slaves.

President Washington had sworn to never buy another slave, but he sent the staff back to Virginia just short of the six-months residency, intending to return them to Philadelphia after a few weeks.

Hercules eventually escaped from Mount Vernon and was never heard from again.

Louis-Philippe, the future king of France, visited Mount Vernon in the spring of 1797.  According to his diary entry:

The general's cook ran away... and left a little daughter of six at Mount Vernon. Beaudoin ventured that the little girl must be deeply upset that she would never see her father again; she answered, "Oh! Sir, I am very glad, because he is free now."

George Washington was the first among our presidents to make a callous decision based on self-interest at the expense of another.  Slavery dictated  how Hercules and his wife and children would live their entire lives.  When it could have been rectified by the choice of a gracious heart, it was not.

George Washington was a good guy, of course.  He freed his slaves in his will, all 124 of them.  There were 153 more that belonged to Martha Washington that were part of her estate when she died.  Because of property laws, the children of Hercules and his wife remained enslaved and are presumed to have died at Mt. Vernon.

Later presidents have made similar choices.  Viewed in isolated retrospect, the choices were selfish, perhaps shameful. The judgment of history is harsh and laments the broken lives left in their wake.

And it's more fun to get this one right, 

of course; to be a help bringer instead 

of a fight-winner.  GA.5.22

We all do the same kinds of things, do we not?  Choosing selfishly without a second thought is the easiest way, and doing otherwise has a price.  We may not get the attention of history, but the choice and effects remain.

We might ask if our impact today will be a noble one.  

It's a 'life now' question that can open a thousand doors.

Half Chance

If you marry, you've got about a 50/50 chance it will end in divorce. True?  No, although that's the popularly offered forecast.  And the numbers are the same for churched folks?  Also not true.

From the U.S. Census Bureau (see table 6, right) we find a different picture.

If you were to check on folks at perhaps age 70, odds are about 96% that they will have gotten married.  Their odds for divorce are 23% or less. (23% for men, 21% for women.)

That's 70%+ of first marriages that did not end in divorce. 

And for church folks? Overall, regular church attendance lowers the divorce rate anywhere from 25-50%, depending on the study you look at. (Barna/Feldhahn)

For the record, there's a continuing battle over the interpretation of such statistics with varying validity in many arguments dealing with age, education, race, cohort, and so on.  The popular media doesn't offer a helpful analysis. The numbers are there for you to peruse yourself, if you like.  You'll have to dig a bit, but those particular facts persists across the studies.

The important part is that marriage can work.  There are a hundred obstacles, a thousand changes, a million landmines along the way, it seems.  We understand, and it hurts deeply when such troubles touch us and our families, our friends.  But marriage wins on points; it's the better path, the greater good.

Mom and dad, decades 

along the pathway.
They're the norm.

Imagine the difference; to be able to tell a struggling couple, “Most people get through this, and you can too.”

Imagine equipping young folks with the ability to counter the cynical statements of college professors or the “why bother getting married” comments of friends, with the actuality that most marriages last a lifetime.

It does raise the question; why would our culture accept the worst possible interpretation of something so great?