This talk also comes from a forum in Britain, where Tutu addressed leaders of different faiths during a mission to the city of Birmingham in 1989.

They tell the story of a drunk who crossed the street and accosted a pedestrian, asking him, “I shay, which ish the other shide of the shtreet?” The pedestrian, somewhat nonplussed, replied, “That side, of course!” The drunk said, “Shtrange. When I wash on that shide, they shaid it wash thish shide.” Where the other side of the street is depends on where we are. Our perspective differs with our context, the things that have helped to form us; and religion is one of the most potent of these formative influences, helping to determine how and what we apprehend of reality and how we operate in our own specific context.

My first point seems overwhelmingly simple: that the accidents of birth and geography determine to a very large extent to what faith we belong. The chances are very great that if you were born in Pakistan you are a Muslim, or a Hindu if you happened to be born in India, or a Shintoist if it is Japan, and a Christian if you were born in Italy. I don’t know what significant fact can be drawn from this — perhaps that we should not succumb too easily to the temptation to exclusiveness and dogmatic claims to a monopoly of the truth of our particular faith. You could so easily have been an adherent of the faith that you are now denigrating, but for the fact that you were born here rather than there.

My second point is this: not to insult the adherents of other faiths by suggesting, as sometimes has happened, that for instance when you are a Christian the adherents of other faiths are really Christians without knowing it. We must acknowledge them for who they are in all their integrity, with their conscientiously held beliefs; we must welcome them and respect them as who they are and walk reverently on what is their holy ground, taking off our shoes, metaphorically and literally. We must hold to our particular and peculiar beliefs tenaciously, not pretending that all religions are the same, for they are patently not the same. We must be ready to learn from one another, not claiming that we alone possess all truth and that somehow we have a corner on God.

We should in humility and joyfulness acknowledge that the supernatural and divine reality we all worship in some form or other transcends all our particular categories of thought and imagining, and that because the divine — however named, however apprehended or conceived — is infinite and we are forever finite, we shall never comprehend the divine completely. So we should seek to share all insights we can and be ready to learn, for instance, from the techniques of the spiritual life that are available in religions other than our own. It is interesting that most religions have a transcendent reference point, a mysterium tremendum, that comes to be known by deigning to reveal itself, himself, herself, to humanity; that the transcendent reality is compassionate and concerned; that human beings are creatures of this supreme, supra mundane reality in some way, with a high destiny that hopes for an everlasting life lived in close association with the divine, either as absorbed without distinction between creature and creator, between the divine and human, or in a wonderful intimacy which still retains the distinctions between these two orders of reality.

When we read the classics of the various religions in matters of prayer, meditation, and mysticism, we find substantial convergence, and that is something to rejoice at. We have enough that conspires to separate us; let us celebrate that which unites us, that which we share in common.

Surely it is good to know that God (in the Christian tradition) created us all (not just Christians) in his image, thus investing us all with infinite worth, and that it was with all humankind that God entered into a covenant relationship, depicted in the covenant with Noah when God promised he would not destroy his creation again with water. Surely we can rejoice that the eternal word, the Logos of God, enlightens everyone — not just Christians, but everyone who comes into the world; that what we call the Spirit of God is not a Christian preserve, for the Spirit of God existed long before there were Christians, inspiring and nurturing women and men in the ways of holiness, bringing them to fruition, bringing to fruition what was best in all. We do scant justice and honor to our God if we want, for instance, to deny that Mahatma Gandhi was a truly great soul, a holy man who walked closely with God. Our God would be too small if he was not also the God of Gandhi: if God is one, as we believe, then he is the only God of all his people, whether they acknowledge him as such or not. God does not need us to protect him. Many of us perhaps need to have our notion of God deepened and expanded. It is often said, half in jest, that God created man in his own image and man has returned the compliment, saddling God with his own narrow prejudices and exclusivity, foibles and temperamental quirks. God remains God, whether God has worshippers or not.

This mission in Birmingham to which I have been invited is a Christian celebration, and we will make our claims for Christ as unique and as the Savior of the world, hoping that we will live out our beliefs in such a way that they help to commend our faith effectively. Our conduct far too often contradicts our profession, however. We are supposed to proclaim the God of love, but we have been guilty as Christians of sowing hatred and suspicion; we commend the one whom we call the Prince of Peace, and yet as Christians we have fought more wars than we care to remember. We have claimed to be a fellowship of compassion and caring and sharing, but as Christians we often sanctify sociopolitical systems that belie this, where the rich grow ever richer and the poor grow ever poorer, where we seem to sanctify a furious competitiveness, ruthless as can only be appropriate to the jungle.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/desmond-tutu/god-is-not-a-christian_b_869947.html

Before we begin looking into this issue, I would like to point out that
this is by no means supposed to be a slur on anyone who may be implicated
by the results of these studies, and is merely a fact based look into the
issues surrounding racism in the workplace. What we are essentially dealing
with here is institutionalized stereotyping, segregating and favoring of
certain racial profiles. Whilst there are countless individual racial
issues that are encountered on a daily basis in workplaces all over the
globe, here we are simply dealing with hard facts on employment rates,
hiring and firing, and other factors which are highlighted by current
workforce trends.

Whilst we all may wish to believe that racism is a thing of the past, and
there is no denying that things are constantly improving, many national
statistics figures from all over the world would strongly suggest that in
fact there remains a large difference in the way that decisions are being
made based on color and creed. This type of racism is not the ‘in your
face’ overt open racism that existed in the past, but a subtle and quite
damaging aftermath of the society that many people grew up in. It could
even be described as subconscious racism as if you interviewed those
responsible, I am sure they would be horrified at the accusation, however,
the facts speak for themselves on this one, and the figures are consistent.

*Recruitment and Employment*

One of the key areas where subconscious racism continues to rear its ugly
head is in interview rooms and recruitment offices. Looking at figure 1
below, it would be easy to draw a number of conclusions about social issues
and other factors that stand behind the figures, as I am sure many people
have done in the past. However, what is not present in these figures is the
number of job applications, interviews and other opportunities that are
being undergone by each group. It is all very well to say that the group
with the highest rates of unemployment for black, Hispanic, White and Asian
people has been consistent for 35 years, but where are the figures for
numbers of people applying for positions and percentages of those being
hired?

Figure1. [Unemployment rates, by race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity,
1972–2010]

Recruitment advertising: is unbiased
towards race issues, so that would lead us to believe that each ethnic
group has an equal chance of attending job interviews and sending in
applications, so what is happening between the application and hiring
process that is leading to consistent figures showing levels of
unemployment: http://www.bls.gov between
different racial groups being so varied?

One fascinating study conducted in 2003 by Devah Pager actually looked into
the racial impact that a criminal record had on applicants getting
interview callbacks, and the results were pretty unbelievable. Even for
those without a criminal record, the results were staggering, as 34% of
white men with no criminal record were called back for interviews, whereas
only 14% of black men received a call back. The results for those with a
criminal record (for drug offenses) only 5% of black men were called back
compared to 17% of white men. This means that there was more chance of a
white man with a criminal record being called back for an interview than a
black man without any record.

*Equality across the Board*

Just to highlight the fact that this unequal treatment of people in
employment does not simply apply to a small pocket of the population, or
one segment of the workforce, there are figures from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics showing that unemployment among black and white graduates is
unequal. 8.4% of black men with a college degree were unemployed in 2009
compared with just 4.4% of white college graduates. This goes to show that
employers and recruiters are inadvertently discriminating against even
those with equal qualifications.

All of these statistics, along with many more from around the world, go to
show that even in today’s world, where on the surface of things equality
and racial harmony is the prevailing sentiment; underneath it all, there
are still some prejudices and stereotypes present, and this is affecting
people’s decisions about who they trust and believe can do the best job for
them.

Author: Eve Pearce, Email: epearce(a)andalemono.com, Wed, October 10, 2012

Sometimes white people think that racism is a dead issue, because they do not experience it. Yet it is not wise to judge other people’s experience based on our non-experience.

In 1991, I converted to the Black Church. Unlike my earlier conversion from atheism, it wasn’t a religious conversion so much as a social conversion. I had been through the most difficult time in my life, and I found that the Black Church knew how to deal with pain. In fact, they had centuries of experience dealing with it.

I also had begun feeling deceived by my own culture. I thought the civil rights movement had mostly ended any serious problems regarding race, except for a few crazy white supremacists here and there. But when I began living in an African-American neighborhood, I would listen as friends and neighbors talked about a world unfamiliar to me. And I was horrified as some of the students at the university I was attending chatted about their almost daily experiences of racism. People had said or done things to them that I didn’t think happened any more, simply because they didn’t happen to me.

One day, after hearing my friends recount multiple racist encounters, I confidentially asked one of the students, Arthur, about it after the others left. Recognizing that I had lived a sheltered life, he simply recounted the story of his first English course at the university. He was the only African-American student in the class, and the teacher called him aside after the first day of class. “You need to drop this course,” she advised, “because you are not going to pass it. And if you tell anyone about this conversation, it will be your word against mine.” Arthur chose to stay in the class and, undoubtedly to the teacher’s surprise, he earned an A. I was horrified by the incident he recounted. “That doesn’t happen often, does it?” I inquired. He eyed me sympathetically, recognizing that I didn’t get it yet.

Some years later I was living in a different African-American neighborhood in a different town. This time there were many drug dealers in the neighborhood, whom I sometimes found sitting on my front porch. Some neighbors complained that the police cracked down on the drug dealers only when they strayed from our neighborhood into a white neighborhood; this policy was called “containment.” Then some white people complained that we had a drug problem in our neighborhood.

Finally, my fourth year there, the police began cracking down on the drug dealers in our neighborhood, and we were grateful. (I even sent the police department a thank you note.) But one day when I was out jogging, a police officer pulled me over. “Sir,” he warned compassionately, “do you know what kind of neighborhood you’re in? There are drug dealers in this neighborhood!” I glanced around at all the neighbor children who were playing. He hadn’t warned them. I concluded that I had finally been pulled over on account of my race.

In the part of the U.S. where I was living, most residents at that time envisaged ethnic conflict as primarily the division between black and white. Many whites had defended slavery, opposed blacks being able to vote, supported segregation, and even in my own time many continued to act prejudicially. Whether any black people wanted to or not, blacks had never held the power as a group to treat white people the same way. Insofar as there were just two sides, it was clear which side was the right one, so I converted to that side. Though there were many whites who did value racial reconciliation, for years I viewed my skin color as a mark of shame to be answered for, until people got to know me and forgot what complexion my skin was.

I eventually learned, however, that the social principles involved in white racism were not limited to complexion. That is, if white people were devils, as Malcolm X had once held, they were not alone in that characteristic. I learned this especially from my wife, Dr. Médine Moussounga. She experienced her share of racism among whites; for example, when she showed up for a job interview in France and the interviewer saw that she was black, he said simply, “Oh, we don’t hire blacks here.” But she faced more dangerous ethnic prejudice in her own country in Central Africa, where she spent 18 months as a war refugee due to ethnic conflict there.

A majority of nations in the world have ethnic minorities among them, and usually there are misunderstandings, tensions and often worse. As one African-American preacher put it, “Racism is a sin problem, not a skin problem.” When human selfishness is taken to a larger social level, we privilege our own group — race, nation, tribe, religion, class, gender, etc. — over others. Recognizing that principle does not absolve us from addressing those prejudices concretely. Obviously in cases like apartheid or Jim Crow, black-white tensions have dominated. But provided we take into account differences, some principles we learn from those struggles may help us as we address justice in other conflicts as well.

I don’t worry about my skin tone anymore; my friends know my heart and my commitments. But racism and related behaviors continue to cause untold suffering to people here and around the world. Sadly, they did not end in the ’60s, even though they have improved. Remembering the lessons of the past is one important step toward working for justice in the present and future.

Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-s-keener/learning-the-reality-of-racism_b_1510468.html

Race & Difference in the 21st Century

First, the word diversity does define us as humans, much better than the word different. I do note, however, as people of different ethnicities intermarry, the lines of those differences are blurring.
But the term “multicultural” does fit in rather well. Take to African-Americans, one lived in the city, one lives in the country. The “culture” of where they grew up defines them much more than any racial, or outward appearances. I would argue that there are times when our ethnicity defines our differences while a shared cultural background brings us together, and visa versa. It is this interplay that marks our social as well as political outlook now and in the immediate future

“Our greatest strength as a human race is our ability to acknowledge our differences, our greatest weakness is our failure to embrace them” differences are beauty of the world: against any form of racism!

What if we look at the terms “diversity” differently. If there is really only one race, which scientists have proven, then instead of diversity, what about using the term “adaptation”. Much like in the animal kingdom, a horse is a horse, but due to the climate, the geography and other factors, they have to adapt to their environment. Does that change how we view each other, as a branch of the same tree, with the differences related to the climate, the culture and the geography of the environment in which we were born or live? Or, does it cause even more stress. I welcome all thoughts.

The actual title is “Race & Difference in the 21st Century”: the argument that I am making is two fold. First, there is only one race. Second, most differences or variations (the diversity within) are adaptive in nature. From skin colour to long or short legs to natural hair can be accounted for by geography, climate or cultural environment. Let me suggest that the reason the term adaptation causes some concern is we believe that humans are a higher species and therefore are more inclined to be “diverse” (self caused), while “adapting” may appear to be response to conditions and not self causing. More animalistic, if you will.

For us to understand each other and to begin to build bridges, we must come to terms with the notion of adaption. An example would be that my skin is darker than anyone else commenting because my ancestors stayed in African while each of you had ancestors that migrated to another part of the earth. Our skins are different colours due to adaption, NOT DIVERSITY. There must have been a biological need for my skin to have been this colour, the same as each of you. We are diverse in our plethora of hues, but the differences were in the biological adaptive nature of our bodies.

We may honour our diversity by listening to each others’ music, or reading each others’ literature, or perhaps sampling the various foods we eat. But us as humans, we are diverse based on the adaptive nature of our physical self.

However, when a Nelson Mandela or a Desmond Tutu urges us to hold one another in love and respect; we understand, wherever or whoever we are. Some of us will go on to remain victims of our ingrained behaviour, although we cannot escape the torment of those two simple words. The vast majority will respond in a cautiously optimistic way, feeling our… See more way forward; but forward it will be, slowly is necessary. And every step we take, will strengthen our confidence and deepen our understanding.

This is a belief based on observing the worst of human behaviour, as well as witnessing the most extraordinary displays of the human spirit. I have come to acceptance that, sometimes, the former has to be experienced in order to value the latter. This is, at times, a harsh and unforgiving continent; yet all of it’s people will invariably find a moment to celebrate their humanity in every day, even if its just a smile or a soft song. Many times that is enough.

“Unfortunately, the world we live in is full of entrenched privilege. The world we live in today was built off the backs of the (IIRC) 12 million slaves that were brought over from Africa. The Industrial Revolution would have come around a lot later without slavery. Capitalism itself was given the kick start by the slave trade. While it’s definitely important for us to understand that we really aren’t that different anyway, our conditions are likely to be vastly different depending on where we’re from” -Quote

In keeping with your nature metaphor; dare I offer the perspective of biology? Mother Nature loves those who oppose her most. She rewards those who break her laws. She favours those who transgress and in the process reinvent her. She showers gifts on those who re-create the very nature against which they rebel. The dinosaurs that weren’t able to evolve died out 65 million years ago. And the dinosaurs who broke the laws of nature, the dinosaurs who rebelled against gravity; today they’re called birds.

Just as evolutionary biology requires constant innovation and adaptation, so does human dynamics. I propose that current global difficulties in this area mean our species is displaying an alarming lack of vision. And a vision crisis is more than a mere crisis of ideas. It is a crisis able to affect your body and mine. It is a crisis of biology. The danger signs are visible in our inter-personal relationships, the environment, how we organize and manage, belief systems, power structures etc. I believe this is as close as nature can come to issuing an evolutionary command.

We are gripped in the fist of an artificial, man-made picture of equally artificial limitations. Most important for the future of the single human race, and its ability to make a difference, is to set new levels of aspiration; new notions of what humans and their collective endeavours can achieve. However, human society is founded on agreement. Laws are relevant only as long as a significant percentage of people agree to observe them. What we agree on shapes society. Once enough of us agree that character is more important than skin colour, racism will tend to vanish for example. Fortunately, as humans we have the ability to change our own habits and convictions, the only barrier to our living in a better world are agreement that we are committed to it.

Acceptance of a single human race opens up the potential for true collective action. Big ideas such as altruism, activism, sustainability, self-actualization, and global community, inter-dependence etc; become practical to execute. And it all flows from removing the ultimate point of difference – that Homo sapiens is made up of different races. Diversity such as language, religion, music and so on; becomes a subset of adaptation. As a single race, we are also no longer restrained by a planetary perspective either, but we can confidently start considering our inter-planetary significance. All it takes is to finally accept that we are one, the rest will fall into place. Don’t give up, keep going; that’s the call.

Another important factor we have to deal with is fear. Many people are in these days for example afraid of the Islam. Fear isn’t abolished with knowledge alone, there are many factors needed for that. Therefore alone it is too simple to say that ‘human society is founded on agreement’ (in political theory it maybe is). This disregards the fact of many other variables like for example power: the notion politics does rest on this fact (many critical sciences have wrote plenty about this subject). This brings me to something I read in Van Wyk, which reminds me of stories I heard about the period after World War 2 in The Netherlands, something Mandela and Obama also managed to cause: hope (I also had the opportunity to hear some great scholars from south-Africa, which was quite an inspirational experience).

People were filled with hope after WW2, they had the spirit to build and make it better. Yes, hope and good leadership are indeed very important factors. But as I can witness in Europe, this kind of hope is hard to find these days, with the exception of the hope Obama manages to bring, or for example a person like Tariq Ramadan. He manages to influence many Muslims who are a minority in their countries, and tells them to step up and go beyond a victim mentality.

No need to say that this kind of leadership does scare many non-Muslims who are afraid for a Muslim invasion and Shari ‘a. I don’t think they need to be scared, but of course I can be wrong and naïve. Fear is not only a negative thing; it is nature’s safe keeper for survival. Many great leaders managed to develop to tyrants as history can show us. Especially after 89 and the fall of the Wall, our social (and postmodern, or half modern) world has developed to something that scares many people: a safe haven has been lost. As a reaction we can observe in Europe many nationalistic and conservative sentiments. This means that the question of globalization and diversity is intermingled with questions of safety and places where people somehow can retreat.

Hope is important, but people tend to forget with the passing of generations, so the question is also how to or give hope back or how to keep hope alive: like Mandela in South-Africa, or Obama manages to do without causing the opposite: fear.

Globalisation drives people as well as capital to move, making our societies even more ethnically diverse. For many ethnic diversity is a simple fact of modern life. For others it is a source of tensions leading to social breakdown. What does ethnic diversity mean for us now? If multiculturalism is dead, what should take its place? How can all engage in the public sphere without their identity being threatened? Are there parallel public spheres? Can we all be different and all live together? These are major questions for the 21st Century.

21st Century Networks

http://www.meetup.com/21stCenturyNetwork/calendar/11337956/

In this living laboratory of human interaction we call home, one common understanding reigns supreme: we honor our diversity. We understand it to be the essential component of survival amongst all species. It provides the ability to adapt and prosper, no matter what the nature of the challenge. We don’t always succeed at first but, eventually, we find safe ground when we re-focus on the essential humanity underlying our apparent differences.

Speaking for my myself, I am a 15th generation African of European descent; yet I am seperated by less than one half of a percent genetically from some of my countrymen who hold no physical resemblance to me. The irony is that, time makes a mockery of human affairs; what is up today is down tomorrow. Only by embracing our universal nature can we overcome the artificial constructs of separation.

In my training paradigm, institutions are encouraged to be good corporate role models as demonstrated by 3M and numerous others via the corporate social responsibility model. Eliminating racism-a corporate social responsibility-, discriminatory practices and policies have shown to be economic successes, but the process begins with the anti-racism/sexism training of individuals. However, we must encourage these steps that corporations take to eliminate discrimination with the constancy, persistence, and deliberate effort of a war effort in this age of transnational racism.

DISCUSSION:
How very interesting that you have raised the subject; there is clearly a global-local articulation of race. I agree that it points to the transnational realities of the early 21st century as increasingly racialized, but in a way that moves away from biology towards culture; revealing the reality of the South-North population movements and the transnational character of the form of racism emerging with it. An obvious question arises as to whether any of this is as new as the label neo-racism would suggest; especially when the historical and geographical specifics are considered.

Another point of concern is the use of immigration, as a substitute for race, in the development of a consciousness that supports or sustains social closure in countries; enabling racism without races. In this form, racial superiority is sustained through notions of civilizational superiority; and the insurmountability of the cultural divisions between natives and immigrants. Cultural difference, previously the very basis for anti-racist action, then becomes naturalized and formalized as a basis for differentialist racism – based on the difference that otherwise underpins contemporary notions of diversity, multiculturalism and anti-racism.

Reply:
In sociology it is suggested that neo-racism is a wrong term for the phenomenon. Racism, does suggest that races cant mix because of the incompatible differences. Neo-racism does this on the basis of culture, therefore its much better to speak of culturism instead: it has nothing to do with race. As mentioned above race doesn’t exist, but it is actually prolonged in its use by the misuse of its artefacts: it reappears in the form of positive discrimination. As shown in the posts this obviously turns back on itself.

Reply:
I appreciate your. inputs, I think this discussion thread mirrors the need for a more user-friendly interdisciplinary language w. which to capture the global transition we are in. Questions of inclusion/exclusion continue to deploy the construct of difference to stratify societies through state policies and social practices. The question is, i think, how to raise the consciousness of people toward the moderating influences of cross-border transactions that are centered on non-materialistic exchanges. So much of the racism discourse is rooted in resource control/ownership/domination w. race, caste, culture, religion used as convenient mechanisms to prop up structural inequalities.

DISCUSSION:
We seem to have a consensus (language aside) that; the exclusion of people is transnational and largely driven through resource control. Bringing the discussion back to some of the questions Francis posed to start this thread. I suspect that, the nature of the response to this issue will differ somewhat; depending on the particular patch of the planet you occupy.

To my mind, the interesting shift seems to be happening at local level; where civic action is rolling back state indifference and market dominance. The work done by movements like the landless workers in Brazil, livability movements in third world cities, peoples planning in Kerala, India; the living wage movement in the US. The generative aspects of this work receive much less coverage than street protests outside global fora.

The 21st century shift in the relationships among the state, economy and civil society, therefore, affects the efficacy of social movements. The challenge is clear, a focus on state concessions is not likely to yield the results it once had. Generative practices within civil society, offer one of the most viable arenas for contesting market domination and state indifference; at least in the developing world. Transnational NGO’s, for example, seem to double in size every 10 years.

Old theories of social movements do not capture much of this new dynamism, because of the political opportunity lens that was a response to an era of state dominance. However, certain activists are responding by carefully building new organizational structures among previously unorganized people. Much like the emergence of civil society as a response to the growth of 20th century state and market forces; we will, hopefully, continue to see the renewed role of civil society in response to the shift wrought by globalization.

‘We seem to have a consensus (language aside) that; the exclusion of people is transnational and largely driven through resource control.’ Yes I think that is an important part of the problem. Robin wrote also some very important other issues that I don’t want to place exclusively under resource management: ‘So much of the racism discourse is rooted in resource control/ownership/domination w. race, caste, culture, religion used as convenient mechanisms to prop up structural inequalities.’ The word I find very interesting here is ‘convenient’. I think that the insight that people are always searching for convenient solutions and not necessarily better solutions is very important. It is often in an unconscious way – sometimes biologically determent, other times culturally, or historically etc – but very often it is just very convenient for people to do the things the way they do. Resource management is in my point of view only one of the important reasons here. But if we do focus on resources, we can see that the individualistic, materialistic and calculating positions belonging to values which are very dominant in many cultures have indeed much weight on these issues. This is very dominant and visible in our timeframe. This is because of the fact that many of these values are celebrated by the marked, they are very much aligned and ingrained in the way globalization is forced onto people(s).

REPLY: ‘I think this discussion thread mirrors the need for a more user-friendly interdisciplinary language w. which to capture the global transition we are in […]The question is, i think, how to raise the consciousness of people toward the moderating influences of cross-border transactions that are centered on non-materialistic exchanges.’ I agree with this. I also agree with what Deon is writing about the local level. Very interesting movements can be seen within youth rebellion and activist movements that reinvent politics, also many interesting things are happening on the grass-roots level. In my point of view the challenge for the 21st century is to keep sight of the local as well as the global level. Both are very important for people for very different reasons; at times we have to be local citizens with a global mindset and sometime we have to be global citizens with local sensitivities. Maybe we have to learn to be both at the same time!

DISCUSSION:
First of all I should add that I am following this discussion with a lot of interest. It’s fascinating to read all your comments, but I’ve got the impression that some ideas run too fast, while the reality is still too immovable.

In any case I would like just to mention a particular case that happened to me in relation with “race” just few months ago, therefore in the 21st Century.

While my wife was pregnant, we were asked to go through some medical texts that must be sent to the US for final results. Currently living in Southern America we were told to choose our ethnic background among these “medical” categories: Caucasian whites, Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans, Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews… my wife is Catalan, meaning that she has Mediterranean background because historically they have been invaded by Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs but also German Goths and Franks… and I am originally from the Basque Country, an area inhabited by Basques, but also formerly occupied by Celts, Romans and anybody else coming from Northern Europe going towards the Maghreb… We do speak Spanish, but our mother tongues are also Catalan and Basque…

So, what shall I answer?

Is my child “medically” related with “Caucasian withes” or is he with “Hispanics”? How relevant is from a “medical” point of view the fact that he is a Spanish national, and that among other languages we speak Spanish at home? …is he related “medically” with those of Maya, Aztec and/or Inca origin included within the “Hispanics” in the US? Or is he closer with those of Italian origin from Argentina? …but are these late ones, and for instance the Argentineans of Croat origin, included as “Hispanics” or as “Caucasian Whites”? What about “African Cuban” or “African Colombian”? Are they “Hispanics”?

The situation is that ridiculous that I decided to go for marking the box for “Sephardic Jews”… at least they were 1.500 years in the Iberian Peninsula… and for sure, they come from areas where our ancestors were living… isn’t it odd?

While you discus about integration, difference, diversity, adaptation, etc… somebody at any remote airport in the US is deciding the “race” or “ethnicity” of anybody entering the country from outside… and seems that this decision has not only “medical” consequences, but also in the census, etc… I still can’t believe that this is happening in the 21st Century. As I can’t believe many of the prejudices that are still alive in Europe towards non-Europeans or towards neighbors from different States.

DISCUSSION:
Hello, thank you for your wonderful comment. I think you are quite right when saying ‘I’ve got the impression that some ideas run too fast, while the reality is still too immovable.’ Most of the ideas on certain perspectives I wrote down are coming from analyses and ideals of mine that I try to develop with the help of analyses of great philosophers, but these ideals are in my point of view far from reality. And to begin with far in the sense that people will actually change to such perfect – whatever that might be – citizens. To be honest even my closest relatives express views that astonish me from time to time. I’m very happy when I manage to broaden the view of a person just a little bit, I learned to see that as little victories towards a better world. I’m afraid that this quest will stay and accompany us forever on. I’m somewhat darker in this than Deon, despite the fact that I also see the power of hope. But I do believe we can learn to somewhat open up for difference and change, and the things we are discussing here. That is also what I’m trying to write about in my master thesis for Humanistics at the moment and my goal to work on in the future: theoretically and practical (in the real world).

DISCUSSION:…but, don’t be too “dark”… even though the world Perhaps. Dr Deon moves slowly, its moving and in the right direction. I don’t see myself discussing with you about philosophical or spiritual considerations around this topic, in any case, I would like just to add couple of ideas. I worked for almost ten years in the Balkans dealing mainly with minority groups and their rights. So what I find out is that individuals belong to different realities at the same time, and that human beings are complex. May be obvious… in any case, “race”, well, I prefer “ethnicity”, is within our “senses of belonging” but just one category, because we are not just Croats or Serbs, we could be at the same time young or football fans, or Facebook followers, like or dislike a particular music group, sport, literature or have interests in banking, petrol industry, political ideas, or so. And usually all these additional belongings open up windows to overcome our ethnic prejudices with other individuals sharing the same interests. With new technologies available and with a “lingua franca” at our disposal… obviously English, people and especially new generations, are on daily bases getting in contact, chatting and slowly crushing down some of the barriers imposed, realizing that the so called “different” might not be that “different”.

In this regard, there are several circumstances that influence individuals and their approaches, for instance to be part of a rural or an urban society, or for example the economical situation. In Spain xenophobic attitudes towards Arabs and the Islam-phobia has been growing during the last decades, especially related with immigrants from the Maghreb… However, when the Sheikhs from Saudi Arabia come for holidays to Marbella, everybody around gets happy because of the potential investment and tips.

It is then racism towards Arabs related with their ethnicity or religion, or is it related with the sense of fear of “loosing” something? If you gain a Rolex from the Sheikh, that’s fine, but if you fear loosing your job… you become racist. Obviously, this is just a simple anecdote, but in case of economic crisis or general incertitude, people try to look for “safety areas”, and for instance in the Yugoslavian case, when Yugoslavia collapsed, the sense of belonging to something in crisis couldn’t be perceived as something “safe”. So with the help of some politicians and the local media, the ethnical belonging was presented as something strong, taking over the space left aside by Yugoslavia. Creating a sense that the “other” was a threat….a threat at the very beginning by the way, also related to the economical welfare.

Where the seeds of hate already in place in the Balkans, as many people argued during the 90ties, or where they planted artificially during the late 80ties?

DISCUSSION:
It’s a complex question and I still don’t have a clear answer… however, what happened is that the reality of Yugoslavia regarding ethnicity changed, and that many people not interested in “ethnically cleansing” their neighbours found themselves involved in a war, doing exactly that.

In any case, some of you mentioned French philosophers post-IIWW, …and France has since that time an interesting motto: “Liberté, Egalité et Fraternité”. Freedom and Fraternity are interesting, but what about “Equality”? France is today one of the most multicultural countries in Europe, but its system looking towards “equality” seems not working, isn’t it because we are not equal? France invented the “nation state”, it became a model for homogenization and especially we Europeans, still think within that sample that has been exported all over the world. Few years ago some scholars were wondering if this model was in crisis, and in fact I think that it is, but only in its adjective of “nation” (even though the Yugoslavian example shows something different), because the States as such are still very strong. Shall we then reinvent the concept of State? A State based on equal rights, freedoms and fraternity among individuals (and not only citizens), but bearing in mind the “diversity”, …accepting and respecting the “diversity”? Too many ideas and lack of time to develop them!!!

The debate to date has revolved around which word – difference/variation/diversity – is more appropriate than another and has involved only 2,3 or 4 people only.

Approximate world population as I write the figure – 6,818,967,320 – dynamics = 255 babies born every minute / 107 deaths per minute.

Change is happening. Whatever differences, variations or diversities existed when each person put their point forward has been slightly altered.

I agree that language is important to a discussion but we can’t be so anal as to allow a language debate to divert us from the main subject. Given the situation that confronts the planet the subject has a momentum at it’s core that should create a greater priority.

Economic, political and other man made mechanisms stifle the important debate – as evidenced in Copenhagen. There is an urgent need for everyone on the planet to be made aware that living comes with responsibilities – to self, to others, to the planet – it doesn’t matter what country you live in or country you will live in; it doesn’t matter what ethnicity you come from or what your children’s or grand children’s ethnicity will be; it doesn’t matter what your economic circumstance is today or might be tomorrow.

Human evolution has stagnated since the industrial revolution with the advent of capitalism and it’s enabler – democracy. Western civilisation has had the audacity to consider itself more civilised by pulling it’s population as far as possible away from our hunter gatherer > agrarian heritage to the position that is epitomised by, but it’s not alone, America. A country based on individual rights and as admitted by http://www.usconstitution.net with no explicit responsibilities mentioned. American individual rights that enhance the possibility of individuals causing the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2009 which affected the planet. Now you don’t have to produce anything – if you can come with a notion or product, shrink wrap it and sell for lots of money then your successful – it doesn’t matter how much fossil fuel it takes to make it, it doesn’t really matter if it’s made by underpaid workers in a third world country (if you can get away with it).

I’ve purposely tried to be controversial with some of the content in an attempt to move the discussion in other directions. My apologies if I have offended anyone that was and is not my intent.

COMMENT – I don’t hate America or Americans. I just know that the American “system” in my opinion has flaws (as others no doubt also have) and I know that to change the Constitution or alter the Bill of Rights would probably not be possible.

Just as a side note – US Constitution adopted September 17, 1787 it took until May 29, 1790 for the 13th state to ratify it and of the 13 –
in 1 (Rhode Island) it got up by 51% of the votes;
in 3 (Massachusetts, Virginia, New York) got up by 53%;
in 1 (New Hampshire) it got up by 54% and
in 1 (Pennsylvania) it got up by 66%.
Even back in the 18th century a large proportion of people voting for the Constitution said No to ratifying it. Things have now moved on in the USA – 13.5% of the population are African American vs 14.8% Hispanic or Latino.

US population projections:-
2008 2050
Non-Hispanic whites 66% 46%
Hispanics 15% 30%
African Americans 14% 15%
Asian Americans 5% 9%

It’s these dynamics that will place another meaning to diversity, difference, variation in 2050 – some minorities may not be minor any more – and we will only be at the half way mark of the 21st century – and this is only one example.

‘In Spain xenophobic attitudes towards Arabs and the Islam-phobia has been growing during the last decades, especially related with immigrants from the Maghreb. However, when the Sheikhs from Saudi Arabia come for holidays to Marbella, everybody around gets happy because of the potential investment and tips.’ We see the same with the attitude to immigrants in Holland, it is interesting how economic factors seem to influence the potential for the need or lack of need for the so called racial arguments. The feeling of safety is as I think a crucial factor; smart politicians use this anxiety every time. An example in the Netherlands is someone like Geert Wilders. I don’t see him as a threat; he only offends, but doesn’t provide any real solutions for the things he is accusing for. He also doesn’t have – as I have seen so far – any real leader capacities, But what we do see is that he polarizes, which is a good thing according to some of his intellectual followers. It must be obvious that I don’t share that view.

Polarizing is as I think never a fundament for building bridges or whatever we want to build to reach a form of respectful sharing of soil. Problem is that most of his followers do not want to share our soil anymore. They live in neighborhoods where they feel threatened due to lots of problems.‘however, what happened is that the reality of Yugoslavia regarding ethnicity changed, and that many people not interested in “ethnically cleansing” their neighbours found themselves involved in a war, doing exactly that.’ This is the reason why I find the movement of masses something to be very careful with and a second reason why I find polarizing on the basis of existing disgruntle somewhat disturbing.

‘In any case, some of you mentioned French philosophers post-IIWW, and France has since that time an interesting motto: “Liberté, Egalité et Fraternité”. Freedom and Fraternity are interesting, but what about “Equality”?’ That was me The French philosophers I was talking about go far beyond this enlightenment heritage. The romantic period was already a complaint against the unifying and homogenizing effects of the enlightenment. It tried to focus instead on the individual and inspiration or knowledge other than reason. The philosophers I was talking about deconstruct everything with the enlightenment values to begin with.

On the university of Humanistics in Utrecht there is some interesting research going on about forms of politics that usually are not called politics at all. Last year Peter Sloterdijk visited and agreed with one of the PHD students on some critical remarks she had towards him about (youth) resistance and politics. Here we are talking about behaviour that is usually set away as criminal behaviour stemming form boredom free from any ideals. If we look at the state it is I think safe to say that many voices are not heard or represented well.

Following the discussion over the last few weeks has been interesting. Now I must warn you, I’m not an academic, nor am I well schooled in the social sciences, I’m a however a concerned baby boomer and the father of five.

DISCUSSION:
Asier’s recent contribution has highlighted to me that perhaps it’s time to circle back, to refocus on the topic – Race & Difference In the 21st Century – and think about the “why”, on many levels, of race & difference but in basic terms. Rather than debate our individual contributions about what might be the replacement to “multiculturalism” perhaps we need to look into/focus on where our perceptions of race/difference/diversity stem from.

Human behaviour is central to this discussion. Humanistic Psychologist, Albert Maslow, created a visual aid to explain his theory, which he called the Hierarchy of Needs, a pyramid depicting the levels of human needs, psychological and physical. When a human being ascends the steps of the pyramid he reaches self actualization. At the bottom of the pyramid are the “Basic needs” of a human being, food and water and touch. The next level is “Security and Stability.” These two steps are important to the physical survival of the person. Once individuals have basic nutrition, shelter and safety they attempt to accomplish more. The third level of need is “Love and Belonging,” which are psychological needs; when individuals have taken care of themselves physically, they are ready to share themselves with others. The fourth level is achieved when individuals feel comfortable with what they have accomplished. This is the “Esteem” level, the level of success and status. The top of the pyramid, “Self-actualization,” occurs when individuals reach a state of harmony and understanding.

Many of you will be familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and while I’m not advocating his views or introduce his views for a sideline debate about the contributions to humanistic psychology I would use his work to emphasise a couple of points. Everyone has similar needs – these needs are our similarity, our alikeness, our parity. These needs can be the things of commonality, the things that allow discussion, the things that can bring us closer. Conversely a people, a person has needs and WANTS and that when those needs are not met or when those wants relate to what others have and you do not that’s when tensions and anxieties manifest themselves and negative thoughts and negative actions directed toward the other person or people can and inevitably will occur. So I think part of the debate should be about how we can find out about each other, and our cultures. We should work harder on this subject through our education systems. I would also suggest that part of the issue is the way the subject has been presented – Race & Difference In the 21st Century – perhaps it should be – Hi I’m Mark from Australia, tell me about yourself, I’d like to talk to you about what you see for your future, and that of your children.

DISCUSSION:
Hello – with the risk of being somewhat to dominant in this thread – I think you make some really good points. I like this model of Maslow very much. Although there are quite some people that seem to dislike it. I think it shows flawlessly that if you miss for example safety, you will miss at that moment the fundament for higher levels. I noticed some people think that the model makes value judgments about these levels which is as far as my knowledge goes not what was intended with it. We just cannot survive without food or shelter and permit ourselves at such times to occupy ourselves at length with self actualization or social ideals, with maybe the exception of some Buddhist monks?!? Yes we can do that offcours, but it wouldn’t be sane, wouldn’t it?

What you say about needs is almost always an eye-opener for people. But some empathy and openness is needed to relate to one another to get to that knowledge. Usually bringing people (and definitely children) together in one space is enough. But it is not always that easy. People must already have some trust towards each other; feel some kind of safety to open up. Education is definitely important for this, but education is definitely not only the responsibility of schools and the only thing that can and needs to be done to accomplish this goal. That is an often made mistake in my point of view, not that you were implying that. I could only wish for people with such an open and fearless attitude as you propose. That would definitely make a better world!

DISCUSSION:
Hi Maarten, I’ve felt sorry for Maslow often as I’ve heard people pull apart his hierarchy of needs in the past. I think he did a great job in capturing an extremely difficult concept to talk about let alone put into text, let alone put into a diagram. I’m sure he also built his diagram with the intention that the viewer had a brain capable of logical thought. I must say that I find most critics haven’t produced their own thought let alone written about their thoughts. I don’t think he was simply intending his diagram to be interpreted as a series of building blocks or that the implied progression up the pyramid, particularly at the upper levels, had to follow a rigid sequence. I just find it a very good aid to assist my thinking about the complexity of the man standing next to me. Let me give you an example.

Some how Ibrahim from Niger in Niger and myself in Australia find we can talk to each other – because I interested to get to know Ibrahim a little better I think of the basic need from Maslow’s pyramid food – and decide that I’m going to talk to Ibrahim about breakfast – so I begin by telling him that I’ve had a bowl of cereal served with milk, a little added sugar and an espresso coffee for my breakfast and then ask what he had. Ibrahim tells me that he had a little rice, mangoes and stewed soya beans and he asks me if I own a lot of cattle. No, No I say, the milk comes from a supermarket, its pasteurised and homogenised – and Ibrahim asks what’s a supermarket?

My point is that even at a basic level you can’t make assumptions, we need to ask questions, we need to understand that everyone’s life experience is likely to be different. This fundamental similarity – the need for food – and the exploration of finding out about how we all achieve that goal if carried out tactfully and empathetically can lead to understanding. Oh, yes, I mentioned education – I think everyone has the responsibility to educate, friends, colleagues, strangers, fellow LinkedIn group members and if allowing the more formal educations systems to include some social inquiry skills to further our children’s understanding I think that would be a good thing.

But education can be of some help in dealing with change and diversity, although not in the inward nationalist way as some policy makers like to see. Besides other ways of learning we need more flexible forms of organizing that are more local, contextual and able to react on change. So yes I definitely believe we can all live together, but we all need some kind of space for ourselves and a recognized shared connection in some way. This is why Tariq Ramadan for example advocates the idea of a the sense of belonging, which means the sharing of a similar soil. So we have enough to do the next couple of decades!

I little rectification on my side is needed for the following sentence: ‘the point is that nowadays many people want in some way recognition for some identification other than cultural difference, or recognition for more – sometimes even discordant – identities at the same time.’ I forgot to delete the word ‘nowadays’. It is true that all kind of identity issues (sex, race, religion etc.) are these days much more to the foreground, but it would be a mistake to imply that these kinds of identifications are something new. Also the view that identifications are at play simultaneously is something that came to the foreground with feminist theory. A new perspective like that – developed since the seventies – just sheds a new light on ways of dealing with identity.