Prescriptivism

[Mike Salovesh]

Mai Kuha wrote:

<<Snipped: Two paragraphs introducing hate killing spree of Benjamin
Smith>>

> I read in the paper that Smith had claimed that the source of his hate
> was  having had to take a course on the Holocaust; reportedly he      > resented being made to feel guilty. All this leads me to wonder: could > there be potential  Benjamin Smiths in my Language & Society courses? > Is there some way for us to be more effective in getting across the   > point about linguistic discrimination-- or are their minds already    > made up? I have always assumed that informing people about cultural   > and linguistic diversity helps them become more open-minded, but now I > realize I have no evidence for this assumption. What do we really know > about the attitudinal effects of  courses like these?

Mai:

I've asked myself equivalent questions for years, about what I hope to
get across by discussing the notion of "race" in introductory
anthropology courses.  I keep hoping to find more effective ways of
making the point that "race" is definined by social usages, not by
biological differences.

My approach points to known historical facts about the biological
ancestry of Europeans and of people called "white" in the U.S.  I'll
cite a few which logically destroy the ordinary notion of "race" all by
themselves:

For Europe,  people like Ghengis Khan and Attila the Hun guaranteed that
folks who think of themselves as "Europeans" are very likely to have
close relatives in Inner Asia.  There have also been many situations in
which Europeans and Africans got together and had children as far back
as European history goes. (I take it back to Hannibal's army in Europe
and Scipio's Romans in Africa, among other things.) The mixed offspring
that came out of these encounters became part of Europe's general gene
pool. Their paths can be traced to both the British Isles and
Scandinavia on the west and Russia on the East.  Every European's family
tree has at least some branches that came out of both Africa and Asia
within known historical time.

For the U.S., I invite close consideration of what happens when someone
who is both light-skinned and socially classified as "black" takes on a
"white" identity.  The obvious answer is that when someone passes into
the "white" part of the society and has children, those children are
classified as "white" despite the general social rule of hypodescent.
(That's the "one drop of blood" rule.) The question is how much effect
these facts have on our ordinary definitions of "race" in the U.S.

In search of an answer, let me define Population A as consisting of all
those people in the U.S. who have at least one ancestor who came here as
a dark-skinned slave from Africa.  Guess what? A majority of the
members of Population A, so defined, think of themselves as "white" and
are accepted as "white" in both "white" and  "black" parts of U.S.
society.  (Incidental fact: the majority of those "white" people with
dark-skinned African slaves among their ancestors are white Southerners.
They make up a sizable chunk, arguably as much as a majority, of
Southern "white" society.)  All of this can be confirmed directly from
historical analyses of the U.S. decennial census figures from 1790 on.

I present all these facts in hopes that they will dispose of the
question of "race" as a biological fact.  I don't deny the existence of
*social* categories called "races".  Those social categories have
widespread consequences throughout our whole society.  Witness, e.g.,
the dialects we label "African American Vernacular English" or "Black
English" or the subject matter of "Ebonics". All I want to do is
demonstrate that the groups we call "races" are not defined by the
biological rules our social ideas attribute to them.

I have no way of knowing whether I achieve my aims when I teach about
this subject.  There probably aren't any good general studies of the
effects teaching like mine or yours may have in changing attitudes about
"race" and other social classifications that are associated with
discrimination and hostility betwen U.S. groups.

I suspect, however, that formal teaching doesn't touch those whose minds
are made up when they come to us.  Discrimination and hate are based on
learned attitudes and beliefs, not on the facts of the real universe.
The underlying systems of belief can be impervious to facts. Those who
have learned to accept bigotry as their way of life already know that
they have the Truth, and discount anything that might contradict that
belief as enemy propaganda.  They simply ignore the clear implications
of the facts I present, and they continue to believe in "facts" that
aren't true. They're inside self-sealing systems that just do not open.

Then why do I bother to teach as I do?

Because I am speaking to those whose minds are NOT made up, and to those
who are willing to use their minds to examine their own attitudes and
beliefs, regardless of what they believe now.  I want them to hear some
of the facts and ideas that give them reasons for rejecting racism and
other prejudiced belief systems. I have no illusions about opening
minds, because I don't know how to fight in that arena.  The arena I
choose is one where open minds are a prerequisite.  When it comes to
what people accept as the bases for social interaction, I am convinced
that the facts I teach will help lead open minded people to conclusions
I would prefer to see replace discrimination and bigotry.

And that's good enough.

--  mike salovesh           <salovesh at niu.edu>          PEACE !!!