THE OBJECTIF

Munyah:  Kimbeng, I am sure the issue of race and racial bias has not gone unnoticed by you. In my opinion, racial bias gives us an indication of how humans have evolved socially. Having looked at history and looking at the relative intolerance of the different colored human beings on the different corners of the earth, I couldn’t, but agree and come to the conclusion that discrimination based on race or racial preference is a measuring rod of human social evolution.

Kimbeng: That I think is an overstatement because it ignores more complicated elements like personal preference, greed and even slavery. Racial bias is only rooted in history because of slavery and countries that have been less accepting of other colors of people do so only because of the historical impact of slavery.

Munyah: That is not true Kimbeng. Although racial discrimination might have been worsened by slavery, before slavery, before everything else, there existed racial discrimination. Slavery only resulted from the primitive evolution that existed at the time. As the human race evolved socially, slavery was abolished, but the primitive culture continued to resist the social evolution that was transforming the world. That discrimination although declining now, was pervasive and today, younger generations suffer from those effects socially.

Kimbeng: I do not I agree with that assessment Munyah. Slavery only came into existence because a group of people having developed slightly more superior weapons felt they could overpower other regions, take ownership of their men, wives and children and then enslave them for personal enrichment. It was customary at the time to wage wars and plunder other nations. People did make slaves of others irrespective of their race or skin color. Countries enslaved neighboring countries and all these were based on human competitiveness and not race. Those who spent more time developing a stronger army and better weapons overcame those who spent their time just cultivating crops. With superior war weapons, history was bound to be on your side. Today, other countries do not want to be under the whims and caprices of other nations just because some other nation is in possession of powerful arms. So, countries now indulge in an arms race whenever they feel threatened. These are all past lessons in action.

Munyah: That was an erudite description although it contradicts your earlier statement that racial discrimination sprung from slavery. It also leaves unaddressed the well founded ideology that in the midst of all these wars, lay cases where people considered themselves superior to others only because of the barrel of their guns. The bigger the barrel of your gun to pillage others, the more superior you were and that superiority embraced whatever definition the parties involved could impose.

So, those who became greedy and wanted more wealth for themselves easily aligned themselves together based on some shared trait.

Kimbeng: I would like to address this differently. This seems more like a rambling listing of opinions which can not all be ruled as inaccurate. Do they address the very fundamental question of the attributes of racial bias? I think not.

Munyah: True, I think the opinion you have raised, although valid when looking at slavery in general might lack substantive evidence on racial discrimination in particular. There is evidence of racial bias and even significant and bizarre cultural discrimination in all continents.  Because of mankind’s poorly socially evolving state of mind, he sometimes sees the benefits of a more racially and culturally inclusive society, but fails to jump to the occasion to seize and enrich his wellbeing with these vast and untapped human resources.

Kimbeng: Culture sounds like another concept different from the one we are addressing. If you extrapolate this to cultural evolution, then you are saying that there is discrimination on everything. In fact, you have men discriminating against women, girls discriminating against boys, and the list is endless.

Munyah: You are right Kimbeng, but the point I am trying to make is whether discrimination based on race or gender is an indication of man’s primitive way of life. Have these tendencies evolved over the years? Have there been significant changes and if they have what are they. Before, women were considered subordinates in some parts of the world, and are still considered subordinates in several domains. Other forms of dissipating discrimination still exist, but the unassailable fact is that these are all changing slowly. This change is what I call social evolution.

Kimbeng: Could you make the point in a way that lacks emotional appeal? All these links to slavery and female subordination at a time of strong advocacy for human rights and freedom, stokes more emotional appeal than it offers a rational perspective on racial discrimination.

Munyah: I do not take that as an attempt to evade scrutiny on the hot issue of racial discrimination.

Kimbeng: Well, I just want a more rational perspective and not an emotional appeal.

Munyah: Isn’t it true that objects do not discriminate against one another on the basis of color, shape or anything else?

Kimbeng: That is because they are inanimate things.

Munyah: Yes, it is because they are inanimate. Isn’t it true also that animate things like puppies do not discriminate against one another on the basis of color? A brown puppy does not discriminate against grey or black or white puppies because of their colors. Isn’t it also true that the only moment of discrimination is when the puppies are newly introduced to one another? After some days of acquaintance these puppies become friends.

Kimbeng: Puppies are animate, but they are not rational beings. They do not have the complex thinking ability humans possess. So, we can’t possibly be attributing inanimate and irrational things to humans.

Munyah: Then, isn’t it funny that even inanimate things do not discriminate based on color or anything else? Isn’t it funny that even animate, but irrational things do not discriminate based on these too? What is absurd is that humans considered animate and rational discriminate based on characteristics irrational beings would not discriminate on. It sounds more like reverse evolution where the characteristic we may very much want is possessed by irrational beings and even inanimate objects. These lovely characteristic have largely evaded mankind. Truly then, racial discrimination or precisely color discrimination is an indication that the human being having evolved scientifically and industrially still remains largely primitive socially.

Kimbeng: That is a convincing thought Munyah. Mankind may have to reconsider the assumption that man exemplifies rationality at its best in every domain.  In the light of such pervasive ignorance, even Darwin would have loved to look back to find out if some desirable traits (and which ones) failed to make their way into the human society during the course of evolution. And it is probably no surprise that every new generation views some acts of the previous generation as primitive. Being primitive though socially unacceptable is and has always been an inevitable human trait.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS