In last Friday’s post, I discussed genetics a bit. During the article, I mentioned, “whether you are tall or short, black or white, blue-eyed or brown-eyed, is a matter of genetics…” which I intended as a simple statement of fact, and never imagined that anyone would take offense to that. Yet, the following comment came in:
Comment:
I appreciate your common sense approach to the nature-nurture debate. The slideshow of the Temple of the Tigers is fascinating. However, one important point regarding your statement, “Obviously whether you are tall or short, black or white, blue-eyed or brown-eyed, is a matter of genetics. No one has any control over that stuff.” The terms “black” and “white” are racial categories applied by human beings to other human beings. It is well known at this point that the concept “race” is a social construct. The PBS series, “Race: The Power of An Illusion” goes into depth on the complexities of the concept of ‘race’ there is information online available. Whether as a human being you are considered ‘black’ or ‘white’ is, actually, not a matter of genetics, but is a socially constructed categorization. Not too long ago in the United States, both Irish and Italian peoples were not considered to be white, for instance.
My Response:
First, I have not seen the PBS series he describes, so I may be missing his point entirely. Also, I will admit that I chose to use the term “black” rather than the preferred (in America, anyway) “African-American” because there is a large international readership here, and the term really doesn’t work well in an international context.
But anyway, I see no problem with the way I used the term in this context; I could have said light-skinned or dark-skinned person, but I think it’s clearer as I said it. Everyone knows what I meant, and there was no judgment or racism in the way I meant it or, I believe, in the way I said it.
But now we get to the topic at hand. You say that “race is a social construct.” OK, I agree. There are some very dark-skinned people and some very light-skinned people, and a whole spectrum of shades in-between. Where the lines are drawn are vague, and much of our self-identities are caught up in where we (and others) position ourselves in that range. In the way we treat each other, it is completely a social issue.
But yet, anyone with eyes can see a difference.
Buddhists are realists. If you take a so-called “White” person and stand them next to a so-called “Black” person, there is an obvious physical difference. Saying otherwise is political correctness taken to the point of absurdity. Anything else is like saying blue eyes and brown eyes are the same. No, they aren’t. They work the same; they function identically; yet there is a difference.
Internally, spiritually, or in all the ways that matter to a Buddhist, they are the same. To deny the physical difference, just seems like denying the truth. We should embrace the differences, and accept them, even enjoy them; to deny them is just wrong-thinking.
