When discussing racism and other social issues, we must reflect upon the perspectives of the people who are doing the talking, including our own. To determine one’s perspective, we should consider the influence of age, race, family background, religion, nationality, culture, economic situation, occupation, physicality, sophistication, education, political leanings, and a number of other factors. The charisma of the person doing the speaking may also affect how you receive the information given. Depending on which side of the issue the participants are on, there will be those emphasizing the positive and minimizing the positive of others. An example may be found in the description of our country’s early beginnings.....
One person might say:
“This country was built by hard-working pioneers many of whom fled from tyranny and persecution in Europe to form a free democracy and civilized land based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. It is now the most powerful country on earth.”
Yet another person might say: “After stealing this country from its indigenous people and all but annihilating them, it was built on the backs of enslaved men, women and children from Africa who were kidnapped and dehumanized. America is considered by many to be one of the most racist countries on earth.”
It would be difficult to argue with either statement but in most cases, people would use one statement or the other as opposed to addressing both viewpoints which could foster a better understanding, particularly as it relates to race. It is not uncommon for those of us who want to promote a certain position to generalize, euphemize, oversimplify or selectively omit pertinent facts.
This is particularly true when socio-political issues are involved and people who identify themselves as conservative or liberal are making the comments. Most conservatives and liberals have this country’s best interest at heart but in order to balance the negative rhetoric from each group, misleading and antagonistic statements are made by each side against the other which creates a divisive atmosphere.
If there is an honest desire to resolve conflict and reach a mutual understanding harmoniously, a good start would be to emphasize and appreciate things we as humans have in common such as..family, children, desire for a good quality of life, peace, education, etc. We can disagree but we can also respect the sincerity of those with whom we disagree no matter how wrong or impassioned they appear to be. Acting violently or abusively towards anyone because of racial, political, religious, or social differences is counterproductive because that action could then become acceptable behavior by all sides and creates an atmosphere of chaos, unrest, and suffering. Just imagine how you would be and how you would think if you had the same background, culture, training, religion, etc. as your adversary.
You’ll probably come to the realization that, given the same circumstances, you’d think and act the same way as your counterpart. Conversely, she or he would act and think as you do. Hopefully, with that kind of understanding, there can be more tolerance, appreciation, and ultimately, amity and unity in the world.
No matter how convinced we are that we have the truth, we must remember that it is based on our limited frame of reference and often times on what we would like to believe. All of our perspectives are relatively small in scope, given the vast amount of knowledge we have not learned, experiences we have not had, places we have not been, people we have not met, and cultures we have not been exposed to.
People also unjustly ascribe motives to others: the “mind reader syndrome” I call it. “He only said that because I’m black (or white)” or “she’s just grandstanding..she’s not really sincere” etc.
Even though we might feel a certain way as to why someone did or said something, only a mind reader (if there is such a person)would really know the actual motive. This can create a divisive atmosphere based on speculation or assumptions which are attitudes we should avoid when dealing with people. We should also be aware that there are many dynamic individuals who let their rhetoric surpass their honesty. For example, it is easy to say things that are popular within one’s group although those same words may be antagonistic to others. What requires far more courage is to say things that are conciliatory to others but contrary to what the majority of our own group wants to hear.
This is particularly true in an emotionally charged atmosphere.
We should strongly speak out in defense of those things in which we believe but in doing so we should be receptive to other viewpoints if we want those whom we are addressing to be open enough to hear our message.
In the final analysis, most people would rather live in a world free from conflict and violence if only for concern for their loved ones. The more narrow our thinking or closed our minds, the greater the chances for continued conflict. If we are sincerely interested in achieving unity, peace, harmony, and justice, we must be open and flexible in our thinking. When that happens all sides will benefit.
Phil Morrison, Striving to be of Service to Humanity by Promoting International Harmony through Music
