We are weighed down with some ancient atavistic burdens.
Recognizing the outsider, the "other," is felt to be a quality inherent in the development of early human communities. People recognized their tribal members favorably, strangers, not so much.
Apparently it has outgrown its usefulness; it is now a diagnosis: Xenophobia.
Contrary to its luxurious name, the Silk Road's main commodity was slaves. James C. Scott writes in his review of Diamond's new book that slavery was a major factor as states began to develop from the looser agrarian communities. "The proportion of slaves seldom dropped below 30 per cent of the population in early states, reaching 50 per cent in early South-East Asia and, in Athens and Sparta, as much as 70 and 86 per cent..... What agrarian states needed above all else was manpower to cultivate their fields, build their monuments, man their armies and bear and raise their children," he writes.
Xenophobia and slavery are both part of our historical DNA. One wonders if it might not be part of our DNA itself. But hopefully we can rise above it if it is. The naturalistic fallacy is no excuse for thinking men.
These elements do raise some interesting questions for the United States. In specific instances in the nation's development the white race has come in conflict with the other three races, two with contemporary reverberations. One has a history of slavery ended 170 years ago (violently, by white men). Another, two generations ago, was locked in one of the most savage wars in history, one against the other, with millions killed and ending in a cataclysmic, first-ever atomic attack on two civilian centers.
One would think, on the basis of that information, that the Black community would be much more easily integrated into the American life and culture than the Asian. But that is clearly not the case. Why? Is it history and familiarity? Is bigotry imbued into the culture harder to uproot than sudden, violent animosity? Is it a cultural malleability? (The Japanese purposefully remade their culture--twice--in their encounters with the West.) Why the distinction?
Recognizing the outsider, the "other," is felt to be a quality inherent in the development of early human communities. People recognized their tribal members favorably, strangers, not so much.
Apparently it has outgrown its usefulness; it is now a diagnosis: Xenophobia.
Contrary to its luxurious name, the Silk Road's main commodity was slaves. James C. Scott writes in his review of Diamond's new book that slavery was a major factor as states began to develop from the looser agrarian communities. "The proportion of slaves seldom dropped below 30 per cent of the population in early states, reaching 50 per cent in early South-East Asia and, in Athens and Sparta, as much as 70 and 86 per cent..... What agrarian states needed above all else was manpower to cultivate their fields, build their monuments, man their armies and bear and raise their children," he writes.
Xenophobia and slavery are both part of our historical DNA. One wonders if it might not be part of our DNA itself. But hopefully we can rise above it if it is. The naturalistic fallacy is no excuse for thinking men.
These elements do raise some interesting questions for the United States. In specific instances in the nation's development the white race has come in conflict with the other three races, two with contemporary reverberations. One has a history of slavery ended 170 years ago (violently, by white men). Another, two generations ago, was locked in one of the most savage wars in history, one against the other, with millions killed and ending in a cataclysmic, first-ever atomic attack on two civilian centers.
One would think, on the basis of that information, that the Black community would be much more easily integrated into the American life and culture than the Asian. But that is clearly not the case. Why? Is it history and familiarity? Is bigotry imbued into the culture harder to uproot than sudden, violent animosity? Is it a cultural malleability? (The Japanese purposefully remade their culture--twice--in their encounters with the West.) Why the distinction?
No comments:
Post a Comment