The primary focus is on the US system. Whites are the "upper-caste". Blacks are the lowest caste. Others are in between. Even within the castes, there are gradations. The author provides anecdotes of the negative impacts on the lower and upper castes. However, some of these can be difficult to tease apart. In one example, an Austin bomber first killed a black man. Initially there were questions as to whether it was an accident or terrorism. Only after white people were targeted did they hunt down the suspect. How much of this delay was due to the "lower caste" and how much was it due to questioning isolated incidents? It is hard to tell, but probably a little bit of both.
The definition of the lower caste is often fluid. In America, "black" has had various definitions. Today, it is pretty much "how you identify". There have been various laws that defined it previously. It may be a few generations. It may be "a drop of African blood". The Nazis were a little tighter with Jews, and generally required a grandparent. Practicing the religion would also get you in. In America, however, Jews were "white".
The book is a little vague about what to do about caste. The standard bits of the "higher caste people need to work hard to stop it" are given. Humanization is also important. She gives an example of a plumber that did not expect a black women in the white neighborhood and refused to do much. After she started talking and relating to him, he became very friendly and helpful. The author laments that it is often the "lower caste" that has to bend over. (And she gives examples of blacks being castigated for being too cultured.) In reality it does need everyone. If we are constantly calling out racial affronts, we may see a "perceived" balance, but are really just seeing a veneer hiding internal anger. Instead, we need to realize we are all just people.
I wonder how the individualistic culture relates to the concern about caste. If people have a strong group identity with roles and responsibilities, do they really care what others are doing? It is a duty to your family and group to continue on the path. You have a distinct realm of possibilities that you can make the most out of. There may be aspiration to be like others, but an understanding that it is not possible. Were people generally content in that world maximizing potential in their sphere? Today, there is a strong ethos of individual empowerment. The groups which one belongs to is seen as a "choice". Being brought down by accident of birth is seen as a bug in the system and leads to misery.
Perhaps the biggest flaw in the argument is ignoring class. It is stated that poor whites outnumber poor blacks. This lower class is near the bottom of the social latter. The only thing that had been propping them up is the feeling that they were better than other races. Now they don't have that anymore. Even worse, they have people telling them they are bad and wrong. How do we bring up the lower caste without bringing down the lower class? It was often the "just above the lowest rung" that would inflict punishment on the lowest. We can easily end up with a situation where the now empowered lower caste people are now being even more negative towards whoever now resides at the bottom. True victory can only be obtained when physical appearance is disconnected from physical worth. The assimilation of "whiteness" in the US in that sense can be considered a huge success. Can it be done society-wide? Or was it only possible by having a "non-white" foil?
No comments:
Post a Comment