Blog Entry #1

Introduction

While I would not define myself as an avid reader, I will say that I am very interested in historical accounts and analytical texts on important topics. I find that pieces like that are vital for people to read not only to gain and retain new knowledge but also to educate themselves on issues in the world they may not be familiar with. Perhaps it is for these reasons that I had been looking forward to reading the non-fiction piece "Race" by Marc Aronson. To date, I have read up to page 67 of "Race." While this is not a book to be "enjoyed," exactly, I have really appreciated the storytelling that makes these hard topics easier to follow. 

The portion of this book I have read so far has focused primarily on the roots of the very idea of race we see in the modern-day world. Personally, I had no idea that the idea of division based on certain characteristics began so early on in human history. Aronson begins to explain this by telling stories about early civilizations like Egypt and Uruk. What I found most fascinating from this part was how they based their society very similar to ours, but with a very different definition of race. Today, we often base differences off of physical appearances, but in the city of Uruk, their king adopted a rivalry with a man who lived in the nearby woods, Enkidu. Nothing said in the story described the "wild man" and the king as two very different people. The idea of separation of the two came about from the fact that they came from different places.

This idea of separation is also explained later in the book when discussing the involvement of religion in the division of people. Throughout history, religions scour their own nations and territories to purge the land of all who do not think like them. The very values of some belief systems require their followers to shut out and forget about people who are not like them. What drove them to this solution? Most of the religions talked about in "Race" pride themselves on being peaceful and accepting, so why do they turn to violence so quickly? Were the leaders of the crusades really trying to defend their cultures and customs, or were they simply trying to dominate and indoctrinate people to become their followers? This section of the book is so interesting to me because it raises an important question: 

Do we crave division and separation as humans?

Do we thrive to create "us and them" scenarios that force societies to drive it's own citizens apart? If not, why else do we see the same events unfold throughout all of history? I, and I'm sure all of you would like to think that we are inclusive and impartial to everyone we meet. We want to think that we don't judge people based on anything we notice about their appearance. But it does feel good to be in a group of friends or colleagues or acquaintances that are similar to you. Perhaps it is the fact that people who grow up in small towns like ours are primarily exposed to people of the same race as them. Maybe that fact makes us more comfortable in making friends that are like us. 

The people of Uruk, as described by Aronson, were acting on so-called "rational judgment." To them, it made sense to want to distance yourself from a man who had different traditions, customs, and culture than them. Enkidu could be dangerous, or maybe he didn't deserve to appreciate the luxuries that the citizens have due to his lack of cognitive abilities. 

I think that this ancient mindset relates directly to the primal instincts of even earlier humans, who had to run and hide to stay alive. Identifying and protecting themselves from predators may have been what kept them alive, and early towns and cities would not have forgotten those skills. After all, that is what led them to build them in the first place. 

Is this the same mindset we operate on today?

Certainly, modern-day humans don't have to worry as much about having to hide from predatorial animals to ensure the survival of our species. People still spend their lives protecting their children, but the fight to do so has become significantly less dangerous for us. This does not change, however, the fact that we feel more comfortable with people we are like, people we recognize, and therefore feel that we can trust. Maybe that trust is placed completely incorrectly, but it just seems safe to us because they look like you. If we could expand the comfort we feel when meeting someone like us to meeting anyone, would the world be a better place? 

While this might make the world a lot more friendly, it would not be the action that solves the entirety of the problems surrounding race. Neither would this be an easy undertaking. Sadly, I don't think that there is all that much we can do to alter basic human nature. So where do we start? 

-----

Aronson's book has opened my mind to many tendencies of our species in general that are definitely worth discussing, and I look forward to sharing my future ideas with you all.
I am enjoying this process greatly so far and would love to hear your thoughts on my ideas, and all of your ideas as well. Thank you for reading.