RACISM? YES! ETHNOCENTRISM? YES! WHAT’S NEXT?
RACISM? YES! ETHNOCENTRISM? YES! WHAT’S NEXT?
Beforehand, let us mind the following statement: be
careful not to become a racist yourself, when fighting racism; be careful not
to become an ethnocentric yourself, when fighting ethnocentrism.
Firstly, the Merriam Webster dictionary[1]
defines racism as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human
traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority
of a particular race.” And it can be further considered as “a doctrine or
political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its
principles.” Thus, the person who believes and/or acts on these principles is a
racist. Secondly, ethnocentrism is defined by the same dictionary as “the
attitude that one’s own group, ethnicity, or nationality is superior to
others.” Likewise, the person who believes and/or acts on these principles is
an ethnocentric.
Both those concepts when tried to apply to reality cannot
stand by themselves. History has proven that race or ethnicity play no part on
the ability of oneself to achieve or not a certain position or goal, regardless
of the race or ethnic group. On the contrary, when given equal opportunity,
different races and ethnicities have the potential to achieve anything within
the human capacity. That’s why we fight against racism and ethnocentrism. They
do no good to the human family. In fact, they harm the development of the human
society.
However, when we are fighting against racism and
ethnocentrism, we tend to exaggerate on our effort. Sometimes we go beyond
defending ourselves and we offend others. Or we act out of emotions and reason
goes to trash; which is understandable; inexcusable, nonetheless. That offense
can take many forms, including physical and moral one. The physical form is
well known for us. But the moral one is oftentimes underrated. But it is a
dangerous one. Let us have a quick look on it.
When following the news, we watch different kinds of
propositions to fight against racism and ethnocentrism, based on the reports
worldwide. One of them includes the destruction of symbols of racism. It’s a
reasonable one. However, we can have two questions following this proposition,
two questions accompanied by two arguments. Shall not the destruction of
symbols of racism make us forget the past? Is not the destruction of symbols of
racism an induction of a singular point of view – singular in a way that it
represents a view of a specific group and race?
On the one hand, it is interesting to see those
symbols as a memory of the past. A past that we don’t want to go back. For,
they are part of history. Being part of history, they remind us of what the past
was, where we arrived and where we want to go. We cannot expunge it. We can ask
the following question: would we burn the books about racism? A book is a
symbol. A book about racism is a symbol of racism. Some pains need to be
endured, for they make us stronger, as Nietzsche told us: “what does not kill
me, only makes me stronger.”
On the other hand, immigrants are visitors on another
country. Likewise, descendants of people that are not originally from the
country that they are living, may, in some sense, be considered as visitors.
With that said, we must fight to improve all lives, but we should, in parallel,
respect the heritage of all peoples. If it is a racist heritage, we should take
it as a symbol to reason us for not going back to that place again. Can’t we
make a white elephant of it?
Finally, this short text hopes to further the debate
about how we can react to racism and ethnocentrism. While one hopes to engage a
productive debate on those issues, on how to improve the human condition, one must
also recognize that those are issues that are carried with much emotional charge.
And when emotions arise, reasoning may be affected. Destroying the symbols of
racism may only sublimate it.
Comentários
Enviar um comentário