America,
“..searching for a soul!”
Joseph L. Kibitlewski, Ph.D.
The America of the founding fathers has wandered
far a field from the original design. The basic freedoms the
population originally enjoyed have been pirated by special interest
groups more concerned with their own agenda rather than what is good
for the country as a whole. It is this perversion of the concept that
is opposed in this work. Forces, groups and ideological agendas are
competing for supremacy. Some the methods used can be considered as
criminal in that they are especially designed to subvert the culture
of the country and to replace it with unmanageable pieces that can
destroy the underlying foundation of what we are as a nation. All
citizens of this country are affected, and it is with the intent of
this work to bring together all representatives of the various
entities that are the citizenry of the United States national culture.
One which embraces all with the only qualifier being that one is a
citizen and desires to sit at the table with fellow citizens.
The field of criminology has avoided,
no, neglected to a large extent, to address the political influences
upon society that can encourage criminal behavior. Political figures,
by their very carefully chosen words and agendas, set the stage for
acts that fall outside the realm of the accepted social contract of
the population at large. These social political figures design speech
patterns and use their own lexicons to describe people and events thus
controlling the dialogue and the emotions provoked through the usage
of such speech. Dissenters are met with personal attacks by these
public figures. These public figures ignore the positions of the
dissenters and attack the person thereby avoiding meaningful debate of
the subject on its merits. These individuals can be as diverse as
representatives of Animal Rights groups, Environmental advocates,
Right to life or Abortion rights supporters and Civil Rights
spokespersons. They consider themselves the “elite” and will brook no
opposition. Some of these very groups espouse freedom of choice but
disallow the freedom of choice to someone who is a dissenter of their
position.
It is the right of every
citizen of the United States to share in the fruits of the American
culture. However, there are competing forces that inhibit, nay,
actively prevent, certain segments of our society from enjoying these
amenities. There are various methods employed by certain groups and
personalities that foment dissent among the variously distinguished
groups identified by race, ethnic background, religion, sexual
preference or economic status. To soft pedal describing these forces
would defeat the purpose of this essay. It must be dragged into the
spotlight and carefully examined. This excursion into the turmoil of
our society will not be easy. To some, who view it with an open mind,
it may be painful. But it is there.
For several decades
Americans have struggled to redefine who they are. The various verbal
gymnastics to create and identify through hyphenation has still fallen
drastically short of its goal. The object of including everyone has
given rise to such terms as multiculturalism … political correctness
.. hate crimes.. America seems to have misplaced its roots. Today, the
average teenager no longer knows what it is to be an American. Prior
to the mid 1960’s most American identified themselves through the
concept of .. religion .. fair play … sportsmanship .. ethics ..
morals and freedoms expressed in the U.S. Constitution.
Ask a teenager today what is
an American and rarely will these ideals be forthcoming.
A lesson learned from the past
In Europe, as in the U.S. ,
we find it is immigration that causes the problem. We may look to
ancient Rome for guidance here. The Romans were displaced by freed
slaves, pagan cults and others not committed to the Roman way of life.
Freed slaves were “Roman” in
name only. Although they dressed as Romans they did not fully grasp
the concept of what it meant to be Roman. Rather, they carried the old
slave ideals of conduct into their behavior as new citizens. In
outward appearance, they imitated Romans, but they lacked the inner
disposition to carry on the traditions of Rome. The country as a
nation no longer had a commonality of purpose.
Today in the U.S. ,
immigration numbers are rising. The new immigrants, however, are
arriving in such vast numbers in such a short period of time, that the
United States is finding itself in the same situation as ancient
Rome. It is similar in this respect. While some of the new immigrants
adopt the dress of the United States, they have not yet grasped the
concept of what the older Americans consider what it is to be an
“American”. What may be at work here is de-individuating, a process
wherein the individual is required to sacrifice individuality in the
interest of the collective. American culture praises the individual
rather than the collective group. Is the culture of minorities at
fault for the failure of minorities to be better integrated into the
major fabric of American society? The question is asked because
William Raspberry quoted from a book by John Ogbu ( Black Students in
an Affluent Suburb) in “ which he seeks to explain why even the
children of wealthy black professionals in Shaker Heights, Ohio, lag
behind their white counterparts.. Professor Ogbu goes on to posit that
perhaps it is the black culture itself that fails to pass to the next
generation those qualities needed for success. That, ”We just have to
decide which is more important: saving our children’s lives or
establishing that their spiritual, economic and academic death isn’t
our fault”.
Several other factors need
also to be considered. Walter Williams’s column was quoted in Nealz
Nuze on June 23, 1999. In his column Mr. Williams
made some insightful
comments. That, “There is no evidence that colleges are turning away
black students with 1200 SAT scores, but there is plenty of evidence
that blacks are not achieving high SAT scores.” Yet affirmative action
is recently in the news pitting President Bush’s position against the
admitting practices of The University of Michigan. Affirmative action
is discriminatory in its design and purpose. It replaces objective
criteria with racial intent. Or, to put it more bluntly affirmative
action attempts to replace competency.
For what is now being sought
was so obviously in place that it has been ignored by the
psuedo-social-reconstructionists. The motto of “E Pluribus Unum” has
been conveniently supplanted by the newly created crisis to have
everyone identified by what makes him/her different as opposed to what
makes him/her American.
There are several ways in
which to create unrest within the population of the U.S.
They are:
A)
Politically
correct speech patterns
B)
The creation
of groups for people to be segregated into,
.. this can be by
race, ethnicity, religion,
C)
class
warfare where variations in economical status are played off,
one against the other…
D) Buzz words for
attacking opponents
E) Profiling by
race/religion
Attempting to “make” everyone
equal beyond the intent of the U.S. Constitution.
Red herrings such as
“profiling” as being strictly a racial prejudice.
Let us examine how this
manifests itself.
Politically correct speech
and patterns
George Orwell would feel at
home at this modern “newspeak” and take it warmly to his bosom. For in
it he would find lies, deception and deceit : a true child of his own
genre’.
It is always in the best
interest of the nation to have the common denominator or several
common identifiers to profess what makes one belong to the nation.
This belonging has several ways in which it is achieved.
One is by personal identity as
a citizen of the country. This identity brings pride to the
individual and provides a foundation for that person’s place within
the greater society of the nation. This identity is further enhanced
by the citizen adopting the values of the country in the main. The
citizen knows what it is “to be an American”. There is a sense of
belonging … a “oneness”.
Another “identifier” is the
embracing of the common language. The language commonality is a
requirement because within the language various nuances will not cause
confusion, the way they might through translation. Additionally,
quietly and without fanfare a bond forms between the speakers. The
English language was selected at the outset as the language for the
country. Although other languages were spoken it was understood that
these other languages were but a temporary measure until the
individual, or the family, acquired proficiency in the English
language. The use of a singular language removes that ingredient from
the mix that might be viewed as a separator between the entities.
Also, it shows commitment on the part of the new comer that they are
embracing the persona of the new land to which they emigrated.
HYPHENATED
AMERICANISM
"There is no room in this country
for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of
bringing this nation to ruin , of preventing all possibility of its
continuing to be a nation of all, would be to permit it to become a
tangle of squabbling nationalities."
Teddy Roosevelt
in a speech before the Knights of Columbus.
Why should those who are not committed to the
concept of “America” be allowed to define what it means to be one? Do
they even care?
Such individuals wish to be distinguished by
other than the identifier of being an “American”. They use hyphens to
set themselves apart, yet they want, no, demand, the same rights and
privileges or acceptance from the society from which they desire to
distance themselves.
The creation of groups
The mantra of cultural diversity disregards the
individual and separates us into identifiable groups. Should
individual worth or success be sacrificed in the name of
diversity?
Are we better off because we are part of a group
or because we are born or naturalized American?
If it is that we are better off because we are
American, then why not admit it?
If a group wishes to be seen as a group – where
only one thought is acceptable then those who think/say other than the
party line of the group, suffer consequences. If they are viewed as a
group for positive actions or events, then they must also accept the
negative images when they appear. The group locks itself into
stereotyping slots. In truth ,what happens is, the minority group,
when confronted with a negative event, eschews the relationship with
the offender. It is at this time they no longer wish to be observed as
a definite group but rather as individuals. You cannot have it both
ways. Those who identify themselves as part of a group will rarely
become successful because their success or failure lies within the
group to be successful. Minorities who follow such dictates are doomed
to failure. Success comes to individuals, who operate individually,
gain the experience to survive hardships because they realize that
their own success is in their hands. No group drives them on the path
to their goal. Those who would subvert such individual commitment are
criminal in their action. They use “political” means to further the
group’s agenda. This is accomplished by name calling “Uncle Tom” ..
“sellout …etc. Harry Belafonte’s criticism of Secretary of State Colin
Powell is a prime example. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is
another.
Also, those within the a group, which require
hyphenation, underscores their commitment of wanting to be viewed as
being “different”. If this is so, then it follows that they have to
expect that they will be treated differently. They cannot have it both
ways.
Being different has it risks. Wherein it may be
philosophically rewarding the real world rarely takes the time to
react in a philosophical manner. But the question remains…what should
be the action taken to allow for cultural diversity? Those who further
the concept of maintaining a cultural apartheid may have strayed of
off the path. I proffer that the desire to embrace “cultural
diversity’ refers to the acceptance by the American people to allow
all comers into our society .. to feel the warmth of freedom .. to
know liberty on a first hand basis. Americans are after all a blend of
many nations. Does “E Pluribus Unum” sound familiar?
We are not stronger as a nation if we are
fragmented. The various countries of Africa bear mute evidence. In
Nigeria, among other countries in Africa, people identify with their
clan or tribe before they consider themselves to be nationals of
Nigeria. In many parts of the world this is also true. The United
States is different. We have, or rather had, a distinguishing ideal we
cherished. We knew what it was to be an American. The oneness of being
included in the group lessens tensions witnessed by nations who are
today struggling with xenophobia. The Serb, Croat, Muslim wars of the
Balkans bear proof that these same peoples were at one time
Yugoslavian in name only. When the time came they redefined themselves
by their identifiable differences. And chaos ruled. The “country” of
Yugoslavia broke up into its component parts. What similar comparison
could be made of the United States? Would it separate into
North/South? Christian/Non-Christian? White/Black? The concept of the
“melting pot” better serves the country. While this may be so, what
the maintaining of cultural differences does, is to create a “mosaic”
pattern in the place of the melting pot. This fragmentation of the
country denies strength to the whole.
This is not to say that there are not
differences among us. We may examine, for instance, the concept of
regional differences. What more important divisive entity was there
than North/South vis-à-vis the War of Secession? The end of that war
did not end the hostility between the North and South. However, even
with the high emotions involved, this was put aside when this country
was threatened by war from other countries. But we were All American.
We knew what it was to be American …the values .. and the label
allowed the country to come together in both the World Wars. Yes,
there was segregation still in evidence during World War II. But as a
nation we all considered ourselves Americans. The racial differences
paled in comparison to the struggle that was at hand. There was a
common bond. No hyphenated names were needed .. we knew who each other
was either by the surnames we carried or by the color of the others
.. We didn’t fight for our race.. or our ethnic origins save those
that made us American. That cohesiveness could not be forged out of a
fragmented society such as the one envisioned by the new age cultural
diversity.
To compound this the spokespersons for the
minorities have been trying to control the speech of the population at
large. Certain words are now taboo because they may offend others…or
that someone’s esteem might be crushed if certain words were uttered.
Anyone using these “outlawed” words are to lose their job .. be
vilified …castigated…and crucified ! Free speech and its expression be
damned…someone is having their feelings injured. The Fathers of this
country I am sure took their speech seriously … never a word was
spoken without fully contemplating it’s impact with concerns of what
was “politically correct” ! Their refusal to consider that …gave us
the blessings that we enjoy today. Was their speech offensive to some,
many even ?? I suppose it was. But it was the fact that because some
speech is offensive that requires that speech to be protected
under the First Amendment. On November 22,2002 it was reported in the
Washington Post that the law school at Harvard, long the bastion of
support for First Amendment rights, was considering the censorship of
speech. The ban was called for by The Black Law Students Association.
They are offended. Should we then ban speech because it offends
someone? Is there anything that would NOT be offensive to someone? It
is this very offensive speech that needs protection. That which is in
agreement with all needs no such protection. The crowd that would
further “political correctness” sets itself up as an elite body making
rules it says all should obey, or else. This is a very powerful tool
for any group to wield and this unelected body then sets out to
dictate social and political dogma.
No one has a constitutional right NOT to be
offended!
I know of no one who has died because his/her
feelings were hurt. But we have thousands who have died to ensure the
spoken word in this country may be unassailable. If certain words are
connotative of something negative perhaps society should look at what
prompts the words to be lacking in truth. If there is no truth to the
definition of the word it will die over time and the death will be one
respected by all society. Lenny Bruce, the comedian of the 1960’s
shocked some audiences with his use of words describing sex acts. He
was arrested, jailed, and harassed by the police. All to no good
purpose. Was anyone offended by his selection of words Perhaps there
were those who were offended. But was arresting and jailing him the
proper method of showing offense? Time has shown it was not. Neither
then nor now. Whites cannot use the dreaded “N” word. I am not sure
why .. again I know of no medical reason for preventing its use. But
what I find to be offensive is that the same Black spokespersons
refuse to speak out against Blacks who use the word. Can it be that
there is a double standard in play here? Is this equal protection
under the law? From time to time HBO hosts various comedians doing
their standup routines. If one was to view many of the Black comics
one would most likely be bombarded by the usage of this word so
vilified by the Black community. Or is it that only “whites” cannot
say the word? One would think that the usage of this word would summon
the Devil himself to the destruction of the whole world if uttered.
If I fail to be impressed by this dichotomy of
privilege in our spoken language, I trust that the reader will
understand.
Today, anyone who speaks on this subject in a
manner that counters the “politically correct” crowd is labeled a
racist .. or some other type of “ist”. They attack the individual but
fail to be able to dismantle the argument that produces this
difference of opinion.
We have also those who tout themselves to be
“civil rights” advocates. They were loud and clear when white South
Africa took advantage of the Black citizens of the country. Those in
the U.S. were joined by Bishop Desmond Tutu who added the weight of
the African clergy to promote fair justice for all the citizens of
Africa. But was that what was really meant? We bear witness today to
the events in Zimbabwe. Roving bands of blacks kill white landowners
and then usurp their land. This is encouraged by President Robert
Mugabe. Where are the “civil rights” crusaders? Their voices speak
volumes of silence. They show themselves to be hypocrites to the
world. But happenings in Africa do not stand alone in such
occurrences. When racial events happen in the U.S. where the victim is
white and the predator is other than white. Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev.
Al Sharpton and Kwesi Mfume are nowhere to be found. The “Rainbow
coalition” lacks a few diverse colors among those it purports to
serve.
Political Correctness
Let us now turn our attention
to that phenomena of “inspired” thought …”political correctness”!
In the interest of preventing
irreparable harm to protected groups, this country was bombarded with
an absurd array of linguistic gymnastics in the mid 1980’s. It seems
that there were groups of individuals that did not like the manner in
which other people referred to them. These people felt that if the
descriptive terms used to identify were changed…that this country
would undergo an epiphany and like magic all would be well. Hmm…
This slight of verbiage has
not been too successful. Besides the apparent humorous, contrived
phrases .. we had to patiently sit quietly and look non-plussed when
phrases such as “ vertically challenged” usurped the description for
someone who was short. The person never grew a centimeter, was still a
short person, and no one changed his/her perception of what short was,
or should be. As this relates to our southern neighbors, Mexicans
could no longer be identified as Mexicans ( people who came from
Mexico ) but they now lost their national identity by being
pleasantly lumped into the “politically correct” euphemism “Hispanic”
! I am sure the people in the rural areas of Mexico feel much more
confident now of who they are. Perhaps this is all an outgrowth of the
poor geographic skills taught to our students in the public school
system. After all, a Mexican to them means little for these students
haven’t a clue where Mexico, Cuba, Guatemala, Spain are. So, rather
than hurt the feelings of these “geographically challenged” students
we have removed yet another indicator of their “intellectually
challenged” educational journey. It is no wonder that these phrases
are welcomed in the public schools of this country for the students
there enrolled are perhaps taught by teachers who are a product of
this school system. We would find ourselves ever deeper in trouble
were we to ask our students to identify by name five countries in
Africa, assuming these students could first locate Africa on a globe.
Yes. A globe. To those students educated in our “ politically
correct” school system, the globe is that funny colored round thing
that sat in a corner of the library.
Could it be that there is a
“political” religious aspect at work here? If one were to attend the
Sunday services at many churches one would find more rhetoric on
political concerns than on the spiritual. Do these advocates actually
envision that the world will undergo an epiphany …that we will sit in
a circle, hands joined, and sang “Kumbaya”? This will not occur. We
see in many areas of the world where different groups just do not want
to be near other groups. This is not a function of race for the race
of the competing entities often is the same. The cause can be as
varied as ethnicity, religion, clan, tribe, political, or economic. If
in the U.S. the issue of, say race, was to be discarded, we would find
little changed. There would still be competing parties for scarce
resources. Hatred, jealousy, envy and pride are within all of us. It
is a human trait. These traits may have been what allowed our
ancestors to survive. Are they now to be the cause of our social
demise?
Is religion being subverted to
serve the political criminal agendas of those who would sow discontent
rather than to open doors and dialogue for social change where it may
have some modicum of success? If sowing discontent for the sake of
remaining a political figure is designed, then it is “political” and
it is “ criminal” in the sense that it does not serve the higher goals
of politics which is geared to serve the common good. Their service at
the altar of “political correctness” will find small coinage at the
window of admission for success.
There are no feel good
answers. Being a victim has no real payout. The answers lay not in the
criticisms of those who oppose these so called, and often, unelected
spokespersons .The answers are within the grasp of each individual to
succeed. As noted earlier, no ethnic or racial group succeeds because
of its membership within the group, but rather upon individual merit.
There are complaints from
minority groups that racism prevails in the public schools. How can
this be when there are minority teachers teaching in these
establishments, which by the way, are the enforcer of speech codes to
assure political correct compliance.
The 1950’s and 60’s saw the
rise of school integration. No measure was too extreme to see that
students of all walks of life were herded together for the social
correction of integration. I believe the fundamental concept to be a
worthy one. I find the methods used were ill designed, hastily put
into practice and an economic burden that produced little positive
results save the employment of thousands of bus drivers. If there are
those who hail these flawed attempts at social engineering, we have
only to look at those institutions of higher learning, colleges and
universities, where students themselves select with whom they will
associate. We find at these institutions minority students forming
minority student clubs, minority students in the main sitting together
in the student lounges and other venues of social interaction. The
students, on their own, have selected to remain apart, different.
Is this learned behavior? If
so, where is it learned? In our schools that are socially engineered
to commit the highest possible resources to social integration ? Is it
learned in their homes? The churches perhaps?
Racists do not come in one
race or color only. It seems incongruent that Whites are called
racists by Blacks when it was the Whites who freed them from slavery.
The blacks certainly then and now lack the wherewithal to precipitate
such a monumental event. The War of Secession stands as stark evidence
of this point. The legislation of the 1960’s also reminds all which
race was in power to promote and pass such far reaching law. Blacks
were not the only race of people to be enslaved. They are merely the
last. If we give credence to Robert Davis’ new book, Christian
Slaves, Muslim Masters ,we discover that over a million whites
were brought to Africa as slaves by Muslims. History is replete with
wars, domination, enslavement of virtually all people at one time or
another. Slavery is not a unique experience for any group of people if
history is to be observed. As for reparations, shall the Jews expect
payment from the Egyptians? What about the various other groupings
from the Old Testament who were enslaved by neighboring nations? This
item is highlighted because this issue is one of the major stances
that prevents the races from joining hands in this country. It neither
excuses nor condones the period of slavery. It merely assists in
placing it into proper prospective. At that time in the world, slavery
was an accepted fact of reality, a realistic outcome of war for the
losing side. To use today’s viewpoint to condemn acts that are over
one hundred years in the past is ludicrous and serves no useful
purpose save that of keeping groups apart for the purpose of self
serving interests.
Europeans throughout history
experienced many of the same hardships in their own historical journey
which also ended on these shores. Should Croats and Serbs still
maintain their distrust or hatred of one another here? Or should they
also put aside that which caused their conflicts over the centuries
and dedicate themselves to becoming “American” with the intent that
their children will be spared the hardships of ethnic identity that
they suffered.
Why should it be the
obligation of the majority to address the insecurities of any
minority? If stereotyping is used in the theatre or movies are these
not vehicles for the suspension of belief or entertainment? Must every
portrayal of a group be presented as true in documentary fashion? The
wearing of “black face” by white firefighters on a parade float in New
York City resulted in the firings of these city employees. Why? Black
face has been around for at least one century and I cannot find any
documented harm done to anyone because of it. Does this mean that only
“blacks” can portray blacks? This is absurd. There is a knee jerk
reaction that such portrayal is automatically “racial”. Yet it fails
to meet the criteria of being racial by definition. Must the role of
an Italian be played only by an Italian? Is any group so fragile in
psychological makeup that it is threatened by mere humor? If so,
should the remainder of the population tiptoe in their presence less
great mental aguish is to ensue? The answers to racial conflict are
not the sole property of any type of minority. Each minority,
regardless of its distinction, will seek to maximize its power if
given the opportunity. I know of no minority so described that is
altruistic in its design or goals.
Class warfare
It is interesting to note
how situations of class warfare can be relabeled as racist endeavors.
An example is the current report out of Hackensack, New Jersey. The
article appeared in the January 20,2003 News-Press and was headlined,
“ Schools more segregated now than 40 years ago, study says”.
Is this truly a function of
racist activity or it is the natural response to changing conditions
among the various groups in the area. For instance, if you are able to
move into a nicer neighborhood, i.e. single family home, schools with
better scores achieved by their students, less criminal activity;
schools where the learning environment is preferred and available
vis-à-vis schools that are merely holding pens till the bell rings for
the dismissal for the day; where would you send your child?
As one becomes more
economically viable one looks to improve the quality of life. All
groups desire better living conditions. Those who make the sacrifices
to place themselves in a position to afford them do so. The color or
race is not the determinant. The determinant is money. Success in our
society is possible to those willing to make the effort. The
successful individual has some things in common despite other
differences. They stay in school and study. They do not have children
they cannot afford. They take a job and work hard at it until a better
job comes along. They instill in their children those qualities of
work ethics, familial responsibility and good citizenship. As a
consequence they are able to move out of less desirable places where
their children have the opportunity to learn. If a neighborhood is
unsafe for adults how much more dangerous is it for children? As a
result, the schools in the area become more one-sided …not as diverse.
What the article fails to mention is that Blacks and other minorities
also leave as soon as they are able. Families that do not support or
encourage excellence in education will be left behind economically.
The value system in the economically depressed areas give only lip
service to education while passively accepting poor speech patterns,
illegitimate children, criminal activity ,all as acceptable behavior.
Fifty years ago, these actions were not acceptable in the community
regardless of the race or ethnic background.
House Minority leader Richard
Gephardt described high achievers as those who won “life’s lottery”.
This statement completely ignores the hard work and sacrifices that
successful people experienced.
Equality means bellying up to
the bar of “responsibility” and being willing and able to take success
or failure as it comes. To risk nothing and to expect success is
foolhardy. To avoid obtaining marketable job skills and education all
the while making poor life decisions is to court economic disaster.
Does it still look as if racial activity by the majority are at play
in determining the racial segregation of the schools in Hackensack,
New Jersey ?
Not everything that minorities
disagree with is racial.
Buzz words
It is noted that certain
words, when uttered, bring about a complete paralysis of thought and
reason along with meaningful dialogue. Let one disagree with the
minority point of view and the buzz word “racist” is sure to be heard.
This then has the entire argument shift to one of race or of defending
one’s racial viewpoints. This negates rational thought that should be
addressing the salient points of the item under discussion. I am sure
that the word racist will come to the fore in the case of this essay.
Is this the situation because there is no rational reason for the
opposing point of view?
Next, let us look at the
words of “cultural diversity”. Who defines such a wonderful phrase? Is
not a dissenting viewpoint, by its very nature, diversity in action?
As mentioned earlier in this work there are several approaches to
cultural acceptance. Acceptance of the past culture one has while
including that person as an embracing member of the overall nation has
shown to be a successful position in the recent past.
Profiling
Profiling … a linguistic
contortion for the more commonly used word, “experience” ! Somehow
this word is getting a bad rap. There are those who are trying to
make everyone believe that profiling someone is bad. There are several
fallacies to this line of reasoning. First, if the outcome of the
profiling is invalid it will die as being of little or no value. That
it persists gives support that there is a measure of value to its use.
Lets look at what profiling is at its most simple application.
The mother tells the child to
stay away from bad men. What exactly is this? It is the start of a
profile for survival. The profile is enhanced through life
experiences. We profile in our selection process for a mate. Certain
traits are preferred to others. As the profile increases in added
criteria the selection process becomes more meaningful. We are tempted
to enhance our own profile by the advertising community. What car to
drive, beer to drink, clothes to wear, places to visit, and a host of
other commercial come-ons. Also, is it not “profiling” when minorities
boycott certain businesses? The lumping together of all businesses
“profiles” these entities without regard as to whom may or may not be
guilty of some offense, imagined or not. We wish to profile (appear)
better in the eyes of others. Should we then ignore this mechanism
because some are not thrilled at the manner in which their profile
looks to others? It is true that some profiles are not flattering but
in issues of safety it is better to be less concerned with feelings
and more concerned with the preservation of life. If certain groups
are not happy with the manner in which they are viewed or “profiled”
they should ask themselves, “What was the cause of this unfavorable
viewpoint”? There are priorities in life. If certain acts that were
unlawful were committed by an easily recognizable group and the
victims of those acts wish to minimize their reoccurrence, then
shouldn’t those victims be allowed to take steps to assure their
safety? Some people’s priorities are not parallel to those of another.
But some say that “racial profiling” is wrong. The events of 9/11
clearly was a cause to “profile” middle eastern men when issues of
terrorism are being considered. But in an effort not to hurt the
feelings of middle eastern extraction passengers, airport security
personnel select unlikely passengers to avoid the “profiling” label.
This is how it is not unusual at the airport security check points
that one may observe a 90 year old wheelchair confined woman being
selected for extra scrutiny . This is absurd!
In some circumstances there is
agreement, but in issues of safety vs. feelings, safety must prevail.
It may not be nice to profile but should we attempt to legislate the
thoughts and actions of everyone to conform? There are inequities in
life and being profiled may be one of them. This researcher has little
doubts that he is being “profiled” by many of the readers. I shall try
to cope with it and move on.
Cultural Diversity
It appears that “diversity”
was in place in the United States before diversity became the holy
grail of social religion. Prior to this wonderful new expression of
social engineering there was true diversity. It may not have been
constitutionally designed but this country was diverse in many ways.
Many citizens disagreed with the various diverse entities in evidence.
These critics were successful in changing some of the long standing
institutions that were in place. The old critics now changed places
with the new critics. Some of the prior diverse situations that are no
longer diverse are the colleges. All the colleges had to be integrated
by gender. How this improved any of the colleges can be argued. Where
before there were male or female only campuses, today they are
blended. Where is the diversity there ? Students no longer can select
a college with an environment that suits their individual needs. Other
types of privately owned establishments were also hounded to become
like others. The Augusta Country Club comes to mind. It is private.
Why can’t the members select whom they wish to associate with on or
off the course? There are other country clubs and golf course for
others to utilize. Why someone would wish to be where they are not
wanted is beyond me save to fill some psychological urge that they
might possess. Does the word envy come to mind?
It is easily apparent that the
very method employed to create “diversity” destroys that which it
promises to create! Perhaps there are those who will disagree with my
“diverse” point of view. It is sincerely desired that that should
occur. Diversity of thought is healthy and I welcome it.
Conclusion
Social scientist Emile
Durkheim posited that “crime is a part of human nature”. And what is
crime? It is a social aberration of prescribed behavior. For crime
not to exist would demand that all people act exactly alike. That this
is unlikely to happen we would all agree. Then what makes us believe
that we would all accept all other peoples without making some type of
distinction? It is apparent that this is unrealistic. Yet we
presuppose that is what will occur to eliminate prejudice, bigotry,
racism and discrimination.
This essay will change
nothing. This is based upon the realization that too many will look at
the situation not as scholars but as tourists, venturing nothing, but
merely being observers too frightened by the social minefield that
awaits them to offer anything constructive. The America of old is
gone. One needs only to look at the 1950’s to observe what this
country was before the final slide to its present state. But it is
instructional to muse and to reminisce on what we were. We will never
be better. We can only strive to limit how far we stray from our
“soul”. But this political and criminal behavior previously outlined
undermines the judicial system, can precipitate civil unrest or riots
and generally prevents the wounds that are present from healing.
Wherein lies then the
answer? Can we as citizens accept the differences among us? At first
blush it would seem that this is possible. But a closer look will
reveal what we already expect is the truth. That mankind as a whole is
not very nice. Mankind is self serving more than it is altruistic. The
citizens of this country, both majority and minority have not the
serious concerns that would keep them from espousing this unnatural
behavior of acceptance of others. Those who further the expectation
that we will all just get along live in a dream world. That is allowed
except that they wish to force all others to share in their dream by
force of law. To change the emotions and preferences of others by law
and decree is unreasonable. Everyone has rights now that transcend
the right to be left alone. This folly is best exampled by the hue and
cry against the Atlanta golf course that hosts the Master’s golf
tournament. They are private and do not wish to allow females in the
membership list. Why is this so egregious? It would be if females were
prevented from having their own private membership. Why must one
entity be destroyed to serve some social engineering purpose? What
cosmic event will be altered if the golf course is let alone? Surely
if there is to be diversity it might include the acceptance of a club
that has only one sex as members. There must be room for more diverse
options within the social structure predicated upon individual free
choice. Those who wish to go to school with members of their own sex
no longer have that option. What good purpose this serves is unknown
save again that of social engineering. Politicians pander to these
extremist groups thereby bringing cynicism upon our political process.
We are no better now then we were five thousand years ago. At basic
levels mankind is still the scared organism it was then, fearful of
the unknown, the different.
Definitions used for this work
Notes:
“political” …”of, or
pertaining to , citizens”.
(Webster’s Encyclopedic
Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language1996 Random Hou
Political criminology …
the act of using political means to engender unlawful activity or
behavior. This can also be accomplished by redefining words and
phrases to cause dissension among the general population. Such acts
could be those that inspire riots and other types of civil unrest for
the purpose of furthering a specific political agenda.
Racism- “the inherent
belief in the superiority of one race over another and the expectation
that the superior race has a right to have dominance over the other
race.
Bigot-..” a person who
is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief or opinion”.
Prejudice- an
unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge,
thought or reason especially of a hostile nature , regarding a racial,
religious or national group.
Discrimination-
treatment or consideration of , or making a distinction in favor of or
against , a person or thing based on the group , class, or category to
which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual
merit…
