You can't force people to be virtuous. The entire apparatus of state-sanctioned violence will not make people voluntarily behave the "right" way, especially if they don't want to. And it's not skin color itself; skin color is just such an easy proxy for cultural differences (and the associated xenophobia). I hate to sound callous to the …
You can't force people to be virtuous. The entire apparatus of state-sanctioned violence will not make people voluntarily behave the "right" way, especially if they don't want to. And it's not skin color itself; skin color is just such an easy proxy for cultural differences (and the associated xenophobia). I hate to sound callous to the people who are hurt by racism, but it's a gradual process; generation by generation, people get more and more used to being in proximity, and culture blends us together.
"You can't force people to be virtuous. The entire apparatus of state-sanctioned violence will not make people voluntarily behave the "right" way, especially if they don't want to."
This isn't true. Desegregation is a perfect example of this.
As I touch on in the article, people didn't want to desegregate schools. There were violent protests, the national guard had to be called in just so black kids could get safely to their classes, they faced bullying by students and teachers while they were there. But nonetheless, "state-sanctioned violence" was used to force the racists to "behave the right way."
And now, while the situation is far from perfect, there are no more protests and threats of lynchings when a black kid goes to a majority white school. This change would very likely never have occurred without that "state-sanctioned violence." Or let's call it, "affirmative action." Because they never would have been in close enough proximity to get used to it. As Martin Luther King put it:
"...it may be true that you can’t legislate integration, but you can legislate desegregation. It may be true that morality cannot be legislated but behavior can be regulated. It maybe true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, religion and education will have to do that, but it can restrain him from lynching me. And I think that’s pretty important also."
He also had something to say to the people who argued that time would heal racism's ills:
"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection [...]
Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation."
...and when schools got integrated, white people fled the district. (Because ultimately, race is downstream of class.) You're right that laws are necessary to maintain neutrality. Unfortunately, all they can do is establish tolerance. (Which is a great improvement over intolerance). Acceptance is a generational project. And as long as we have an undeclared class war, race will always be a problem, because it's so easy to exploit. Top-down intervention solves closed problems ("we don't hire X") but not open problems (sure you hired X...and now everyone's uncomfortable around them). Wish there was a better way, but the more history I read, the more I wonder how much "the inherent worth and dignity of every human being" is the aberration, and Wilhoit's Law is the (closer to nature) law of things. I want to live in the first example, and try to personally embody that idea, but humanity is big, and people are tribalistic.
You can't force people to be virtuous. The entire apparatus of state-sanctioned violence will not make people voluntarily behave the "right" way, especially if they don't want to. And it's not skin color itself; skin color is just such an easy proxy for cultural differences (and the associated xenophobia). I hate to sound callous to the people who are hurt by racism, but it's a gradual process; generation by generation, people get more and more used to being in proximity, and culture blends us together.
"You can't force people to be virtuous. The entire apparatus of state-sanctioned violence will not make people voluntarily behave the "right" way, especially if they don't want to."
This isn't true. Desegregation is a perfect example of this.
As I touch on in the article, people didn't want to desegregate schools. There were violent protests, the national guard had to be called in just so black kids could get safely to their classes, they faced bullying by students and teachers while they were there. But nonetheless, "state-sanctioned violence" was used to force the racists to "behave the right way."
And now, while the situation is far from perfect, there are no more protests and threats of lynchings when a black kid goes to a majority white school. This change would very likely never have occurred without that "state-sanctioned violence." Or let's call it, "affirmative action." Because they never would have been in close enough proximity to get used to it. As Martin Luther King put it:
"...it may be true that you can’t legislate integration, but you can legislate desegregation. It may be true that morality cannot be legislated but behavior can be regulated. It maybe true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, religion and education will have to do that, but it can restrain him from lynching me. And I think that’s pretty important also."
He also had something to say to the people who argued that time would heal racism's ills:
"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection [...]
Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation."
...and when schools got integrated, white people fled the district. (Because ultimately, race is downstream of class.) You're right that laws are necessary to maintain neutrality. Unfortunately, all they can do is establish tolerance. (Which is a great improvement over intolerance). Acceptance is a generational project. And as long as we have an undeclared class war, race will always be a problem, because it's so easy to exploit. Top-down intervention solves closed problems ("we don't hire X") but not open problems (sure you hired X...and now everyone's uncomfortable around them). Wish there was a better way, but the more history I read, the more I wonder how much "the inherent worth and dignity of every human being" is the aberration, and Wilhoit's Law is the (closer to nature) law of things. I want to live in the first example, and try to personally embody that idea, but humanity is big, and people are tribalistic.