Is Stephen Fry Canadian? I think not.
Is Stephen Fry Canadian? I think not.
okay I'll have to give you that one.
That's exactly what's wrong. "We are human" does not qualify as understanding. You are just painting over the diverse body of people that constitute "human" with an extremely broad brush. It's the biggest generalization you can make. Understanding that "we're all human" is not the same as understanding the pain of a paraplegic, or understanding the struggles of a second-class citizen. All it does is find some obvious common ground when common ground isn't the root of the issue. For them to truly achieve equal opportunity, for them to feel embraced by our society, we need to recognize their differences and work around them. That's because understanding is not rooted in similarities, it's rooted in differences. To observe, analyze, accept and hopefully embrace the differences between people, races and ages is what understanding is.Quote:
"We are all Human, don't be a dick to a person because they are a Woman/gay/Canadian/poor."
Does that make sense now?
Generalization is good. Diversity is bad. Well, no, let me rephrase that. Having diversity is good, but needing to be diverse in the first place is bad. Everyone's the same, we're all human and we all have the same potential at the very moment of conception. It may be much less likely that an impoverished, blind child become a great painter, as opposed to a gentry-born, artistic one, but it is possible.
Also, flat what to your understanding comes from differences and not similarities. You need a place to build from.
Lol, I;m studying Anthropology and this subject is a big part of it. At the genetic level, there is really, not much difference beween 'races'. Race is a socially constructed term. What is different are cultures. This is not just a different societies fancy traditional dances with bells. It goes much deeper than that. From the time we're born we learn to catogorize things; these form the basics of our assumtions about absolutely everthing: who we are, how we relate to others, what food we like, what is and what is not. These make us different.
Sure, it's possible for a deaf person to write music (Beethoven ftw), but these are exceptions. The ratio of deaf-born humans who have become composers as opposed to to those with hearing is, for obvious reaons, incredibly low. Treating a deaf person as if they have the same potential to become a composer as a hearing-capable human is illogical. A deaf person has far more obstacles in front of them.
Which begs the question of what you mean by "equal potential" and how it related to treating people of different backgrounds and identities.
When we say "people are the same", what we really mean is "people are the same based on my perception of the norm". When it comes to people that are radically different, viewing them as "the same" will only leave them grossly misunderstood because they aren't. And we know damn well they aren't. I'm not gonna take a man in a wheelchair hiking with me and expect him to meet me at the top of the mountain based on some infinitesimal, theoretical chance.
And yes, Peteman, that is a good point, but understand that race, culture and genetics go hand-in-hand based on one primary factor: geography. So even if we try to disassociate race from the other two, chances are you can make generalizations about someone's culture based on their race and be right maybe greater than half the time. So race is rather relevant to the issue.
Find me a university professor with an IQ of 60 (I know IQ isn't reliable, but you ought to understand my meaning).
Find me a hideously deformed celebrity who isn't famous for being ugly. (That says something about our culture...)
Find me an unambitious self-made man.
We are not born equal. This is one of the few myths that can be called "liberal bias" without being a crazy conservative. It comes from the very enlightenment notion that we are "all equal in the eyes of God". There is no God. The original liberals acknowledged we were unequal in every way but that one: modern notions of equality are based on that single idea, and that idea is a convenient fantasy.
EDIT: Note that none of this relates to race. No race is inferior to another and the evidence which suggests otherwise was produced by biased sources. It would be interesting, however, to look into the intelligence etc. of people from the same background where the only difference between them is their race and see if there are racial differences in certain faculties. I'm not about to deny that it's a possibility, but my gut feeling tells me that any differences you'd find would be very minor; different races aren't exactly sub-species of humans. >__>
As I said: theoretically. Those things can very well exist, it's just highly, highly unlikely. The chances are infinitesimal, maybe even one in a billion. But of course you are being needlessly specific. Why would a person with an IQ of 60 pursue a career as a university teacher anyway? Their potential for success in society can be found elsewhere. In essence, they do share the same potential in the sense that society doesn't predetermine or guarantee the method of our success. As in, even an average person is not born destined to be a university teacher or a celebrity, or an Olympic-level athlete. We do what we're suited for in life. So I think it's safe to say, theoretically, everyone has a shot at success, just not at the same things.
I agree. Unfortunately some people are not suited for success. There are winners and losers.Quote:
Originally Posted by CypressDahlia