I am reeling from the tragedy unfolding at Fort Hood. This incident provides so many different principles to ponder, it was hard to zero in on just one. But this one is one of the toughest among the very tough ethical issues of today. I'm talking about the decidedly INcorrect practice of racial and/or cultural profiling.
When I saw the bulletin crawling at the bottom of my TV screen yesterday, my first thought was that some soldier or civilian resident on the U.S. Army base had gone "postal" over either a domestic dispute or some barroom brouhaha. Minutes later, the news department broke into the programming to say that the shooter had been identified, he had been shot by a U
.S. soldier, and his name was Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Even more noticeable to me than the distinctly Middle Eastern sound of that name was the lack of any remark about that name on the reporter's part. The following string of thoughts raced through my head:
1. I wonder if he's a Muslim
2. What's he doing in the U.S. Army?
3. I'll bet this is a terrorist act.
4. They wouldn't have just promoted him to Major if he was anything but a model soldier!
5. As an African American who has lived for 65 years dealing with racial prejudice, you (meaning myself) should be ashamed for even thinking these thoughts.
So I sit here now, attempting to come to terms with what is clearly a dilemma, not just for Americans or fill-in-the-blank-Americans (i.e., Native or Asian or Italian or Muslim, etc.), but for humankind. Our brains are wired to develop conclusions based on a series of visual or auditory clues. It works very well for most of us most of the time. But try these on for size:
-On bad hair days I like to tie a scarf around my hair with the knot on the side, just above one ear. When I do, I can count on having at least one person say "you look like a gypsy!" Am I a gypsy? Hardly. But what if I took to carrying a crystal ball around with me and wearing a long, full and colorful skirt? Chances are the responses would change from "you look like a gypsy" to "Are you a gypsy?"
-A man named Bill DeBardelaben submits an application for an important job in Amsterdam. His Dutch name jumps off the page at the hiring manager, immediately piquing his interest. But when Mr. DeBardelaben arrives for his interview, the hiring manager is flummoxed and hardly able to speak. It turns out that Mr. DeBardelaben, an American, is clearly of African descent and his skin color is that of the darkest ebony. There is no hint whatsoever of his being of mixed race. Because he's not. He is from Alabama and his ancestors were slaves owned by a Dutch plantation owner.
In either of these examples, no one would accuse the people who made these assumptions of being prejudiced; at least not to the level of cultural profiling. They took in clues, processed those clues based on previous learning and/or experience, and drew conclusions. The problem is that there was crucial information missing, but neither observer knows that or what it is.
When I saw the bulletin crawling at the bottom of my TV screen yesterday, my first thought was that some soldier or civilian resident on the U.S. Army base had gone "postal" over either a domestic dispute or some barroom brouhaha. Minutes later, the news department broke into the programming to say that the shooter had been identified, he had been shot by a U
.S. soldier, and his name was Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Even more noticeable to me than the distinctly Middle Eastern sound of that name was the lack of any remark about that name on the reporter's part. The following string of thoughts raced through my head:1. I wonder if he's a Muslim
2. What's he doing in the U.S. Army?
3. I'll bet this is a terrorist act.
4. They wouldn't have just promoted him to Major if he was anything but a model soldier!
5. As an African American who has lived for 65 years dealing with racial prejudice, you (meaning myself) should be ashamed for even thinking these thoughts.
So I sit here now, attempting to come to terms with what is clearly a dilemma, not just for Americans or fill-in-the-blank-Americans (i.e., Native or Asian or Italian or Muslim, etc.), but for humankind. Our brains are wired to develop conclusions based on a series of visual or auditory clues. It works very well for most of us most of the time. But try these on for size:
-On bad hair days I like to tie a scarf around my hair with the knot on the side, just above one ear. When I do, I can count on having at least one person say "you look like a gypsy!" Am I a gypsy? Hardly. But what if I took to carrying a crystal ball around with me and wearing a long, full and colorful skirt? Chances are the responses would change from "you look like a gypsy" to "Are you a gypsy?"
-A man named Bill DeBardelaben submits an application for an important job in Amsterdam. His Dutch name jumps off the page at the hiring manager, immediately piquing his interest. But when Mr. DeBardelaben arrives for his interview, the hiring manager is flummoxed and hardly able to speak. It turns out that Mr. DeBardelaben, an American, is clearly of African descent and his skin color is that of the darkest ebony. There is no hint whatsoever of his being of mixed race. Because he's not. He is from Alabama and his ancestors were slaves owned by a Dutch plantation owner.
In either of these examples, no one would accuse the people who made these assumptions of being prejudiced; at least not to the level of cultural profiling. They took in clues, processed those clues based on previous learning and/or experience, and drew conclusions. The problem is that there was crucial information missing, but neither observer knows that or what it is.
If I were to say out loud that all Sicilians are Mafioso; all diamond merchants are Jews; all black men are dangerous; all Irish people drink a lot; no white people have rhythm; all cops are bullies; all politicians lie; and all married men cheat, I would be pummeled by any world citizen interested in being politically correct. But who hasn't had one or more of these or similar thoughts about whole groups of people?
I believe strongly that we should continue to encourage ourselves and others to avoid making snap judgments based on limited visual and audible clues. It's not fair and, ideally, we all deserve the benefit of the doubt. But will we ever be able to totally overcome that which makes us human, that ability we have to think critically and quickly to determine if we need to engage our fight or flight instincts? That might be just a little too much to ask.
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you choose to comment as Anonymous but you want me to know who you are, just sign your comment in a way I will recognize. Thanks!
WARNING: This site cannot receive comments from iPads, unfortunately. I am trying to find a solution.