Rewriting Possibility: 84%
This view is sometimes associated with the claim that historians and social scientist should eliminate talk of race and racial Identities from heir vocabularies, a proposition that Is often rejected by those who would defend a social constructionist account of racial identities” (Williams). The debate about multiculturalism is less well focused on the word itself but generally concerns the justification of multicultural educational practices in the context of political recognition.
The central question here, is “whether multiculturalism should be embraced for the reason that it advances the self-esteem of individuals belonging to socially oppressed groups” O. E. African-Americans) by giving them the ability to covers the reflection or representation of their Identities In an amended decree. (Williams) Anthony APIPA author of “Color Conscious: The Political Morality of Race” illustrates how “race” is based on fiction but views racism as its factual outcome.
His article begins with an in-depth analysis of historical thoughts on race to illustrate why the current concept of race fails to adequately explain social distinctions in the united States. And it ends by offering the concept of “racial Identity’ as the basis for a more productive discourse, one that “can be the basis of resistance to racism” by allowing for the redefinition of personal and collective identities. Racial injustice may be the most morally and intellectually vexing problem in the public life of this country. How should we respond? ” (APIPA, peg. 10). He believes society should work towards eliminating racial identity. He goes further to state the reasons why “race” should be phased out, he looks at race as not Just an actual biological category, but one that has been constructed by society to Identify (categorize) persons. With this labeling comes racial delimitation and social Injustices.
Instead of having “race”, he goes on to illustrate how people should be identified, biological verses mainly skin color. APIPA articulates that there are genetic differences in people that results in a variety in skin tones and physical features. Also location plays a huge role in identifying groups of people, he recognizes that people who have derived from the same places share similar genes. The genetic differences between these populations tend to be more accurate than the categorization of “race. “There are heritable characteristics, possessed by members of our species, which allow us to divide them onto a small set of races, in such a way that all members of those races share certain traits and tendencies with each other that they do not share with members of any other race” (APIPA,pas. 54-57). In other words Pasha’s supports an idea of using color as an Identifier instead of race as a descriptive. One is the “additional” view of race, (accounts for the meaning of the term “race” by laying a set of rules for applying that term).
The second, the “referential” account of race, the causal theory: “if you want to know what object a word refers to, find the hint in the world that gives the best causal explanation of the central features of uses of that word. ” “APIPA explains The difference between the two, is that the referential view(causal theory) requires an historical investigation of the meaning of race that the additional view does not explain” (But).
Since “exploring the history of the term is central to understanding what it means,” APIPA does Just that and gives the history of the ideas of some respected elites of the United States such as Thomas Jefferson. This exploration results in a thorough account of how race evolved into biological and scientific conceptions of preferences among human beings. By revealing the falsity of these conceptions, “APIPA leads us to a persuasive conclusion that neither the additional nor referential accounts (causal theory) explains social distinctions” (But).
From the additional view, race was supposed to show the “correlation between the biological and the moral, literary, or psychological characters of humans,” which “has turned out not to be true. On the referential view, two possible race concepts exist, neither of which is particularly helpful in racial discourse” (But). Moreover, the use of illogical characteristics to define groups fails to establish any correlation with group characteristics that are important for moral or social life, which begins at the core of the racial discourse.
In Luscious Outlaws “Conserve Races? In Defense of W. E. B. Dubos,” he talks about the importance of race and why we as a society need to find different ways to conserve race. “The challenge is to find ways to conserve a revised understanding of race that is both socially useful and consistent with a revised notion of democratic justice that is appropriately balance between recognizing and valuing racial and ethnic cultural groupings. ” In other words Outlaws main claim is to find ways for society to preserve race and their identities.
He wants to develop a “strategy’ that allows people to identify with what they may choose, without the association of social/racial stereotyping. He believes the problem is not the idea of racial grouping but the misconceptions from ignoring the differences in people’s backgrounds(ethnicities) and their practices (culture). Outlaws meaning of race and why it should be conserved clashes with Anthony Pasha’s idea of racial eliminative. Outlaws respond to Pasha’s belief in eliminating race is clear and straight to the point.
It states that ignoring the fact that there are racial differences between people is not going to help people better understand one another. Outlaw believes that in order for there to be a such thing as social harmony people must first acknowledge that people are different in their own respects, and ignoring these differences is only adding fuel to the fire. In order for society to fully embrace different groups one must first understand that there are many factors contributing to racial identity, thus one just not solely rely on one aspect of a person. This view of “race” is that it makes it possible to understand the investments of often contested interests involved in takes account of leaning. Social learning regarding race, assisted by critical social thought, might well provide resources by which to move beyond racism to a socially productive pluralist democracy without an unnecessary abstract, reductionism individualism that promotes an amorphous universalism”(,peg 21).
Also racial differences are extremely important to humans; we like to relate to there people who are from the same area, look and believe in the same ideologies as we do (culture) and in result the elimination of this will be an elimination of centuries of histories. Preserving race preserves cultures and cultural achievements, especially in cultures in which that group’s history was tarnished (African-Americans). Cultures, languages and the arts will all be affected if there was an end to racial/ethnic identities.
Humans feel the need to be a part of groups, shared identities and ideas can serve as a basis of getting people to work towards the improvement of a group ND overall society. “The struggle against racism requires talking about race… Even If racism disappears, we should conserve race” (Class notes, 01. 30. 13). I totally agree with this quote, racism is based off ignorance and misunderstandings. Eliminating and refusing to talk about race merely because it makes people UN-easy is outrageous. As long as there is an human race, social and racial segregation will always exists.
And because this is something that will forever stay, conversing and formulating ideas to cease the tension between races will only bring people closer to understanding one another. Ignoring differences leads to more discrimination, which leads me to disagree with Pasha’s idea of racial eliminative. In a perfect society racial eliminative would prosper but because society is never flawless, the idea of racial eliminative is pure ignorance. Ignoring that there is a problem only creates bigger problems. “… N A coherent and socially viable way, multiple commitments to diverse and seemingly divergent principles that favor individuality without regard to race and/or ethnicity and also favor regard for ethnicity and race (or gender, or sexual orientation) is a most demanding task which, unfinished, adds to the potential explosiveness of the complexities and tensions of contemporary American social life” (Outlaw, peg. 18). Yes living in a color-blind society in which race nor color does not exist would be ideal but because of our histories of social institutions based upon racial segregation and discrimination, utopia is unreachable.
The formation of racial groupings and segregation will never disappear; because of this working towards a society where racism is acknowledged but not tolerated is key. Outlaws rebuttal of admitting the existence of racial differences and embracing them makes more sense to me. Personally, embracing what identifies me; Black, female is not a problem for me. Living in a world where I know there is much discrimination is better than being ignorant of the fact that I will more than often be discriminated or labeled based on my appearance.
Being prepared to tackle what ever comes my way is important. Ignoring the fact that this will not happen is ignorance within itself. So embracing my identities is a huge part of my life, only enforcing the idea of Outlaws statement of “culture proneness. “The challenge is to find ways to conserve revised understanding of race that is appropriately balanced between recognizing and valuing racial and ethnic cultural groupings and preserving the best achievements of modern Enlightenment’s and the political revolution of Liberalism” (APIPA 35).
Between the two (APIPA and Outlaw) cache’s goal is to end racial discrimination by any means necessary. Each author gives good arguments in what direction they would take to end this factor. They both have different approaches to race relations but in all, they both agree that though a color- Lind society would be ideal, color-consciousness is very much necessary.
Because of our social institutions (based on color with purpose to discriminate against minorities) achieving this would be remarkable. I believe Outlaws view on multiculturalism to be true,you can’t get much of a race concept,from any of these traditions; you can get various possible candidates from the referential notion of meaning, but none of them will be much good for explaining social or psychological life, and none of them corresponds to the social groups we consider races in America.