| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
|
|
<
< | Is Familyism Any Different Than Racism? |
>
> | Is Familyism Any Different Than Racism? |
| | -- By JeffreySchatz - 15 Apr 2010 |
| | WS: It’s true on average, but there are exceptions to every rule. |
|
<
< | I: So you acknowledge that there are at least a few black people who are just as smart and nice as white people. |
>
> | I: So you acknowledge that there are at least some black people who are just as smart and nice as white people. |
| | |
|
<
< | WS: Sure, there are always exceptions. There are also some dumb, no good white people. But, on average, whites are better in these ways. |
>
> | WS: Sure, there are always exceptions. There are also dumb white people. But, on average, whites are better in these ways. |
| | I: So you don’t have a problem with these black people? |
| | I: Better at what? |
|
<
< | WS: Just better. Like God is better than the devil or good is better than evil. They’re just better. |
>
> | WS: Just better. Like good is better than evil. They’re just better. |
| |
And between a parent and child |
| | P: No, it’s not about that. You just have to treat family members in a different way than you treat others. It’s just the way things work. I can’t explain it. You’ll understand when you have children.
Value Groups |
|
<
< | The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. The white supremacist tries to give other reasons for the difference in values he places on whites and blacks, but in the end has to admit it is simply about race. The parent readily admits that she values her child more than the neighbor for the simple reason that the child is a family member. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group. |
>
> | The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group. |
| | |
|
<
< | So is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? Both racism and familyism involve prioritizing those within your group over those outside of it for no reason other than the simple fact that they are in your group. However, we view racism as "bad" and familyism as "good." While the effects of racism are arguably more detrimental to society, the underlying principles of both are similar, and praising one while condemning the other appears to be inconsistent. |
>
> | Is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? Both racism and familyism involve prioritizing those within your group over those outside of it for no reason other than the simple fact that they are in your group. However, we view racism as "bad" and familyism as "good." While the effects of racism are arguably more detrimental to society, the underlying principles of both are similar, and praising one while condemning the other appears to be inconsistent. |
| | Effects
Racism has served as a motivation for violence, genocide and war. This is not true for familyism. Family feuds are largely a thing of the past, and aside from the rare "hockey Dad" brawl, familyism generally manifests itself in a non-violent way. Additionally, familyism arguably has some benefits. It could be difficult for children to survive to adulthood if their parents didn’t give them any special treatment. More importantly, the love of, and interaction with, family members is a source of great joy for many people. It would be difficult to argue that racism either saves lives or provides people with a significant source of happiness. |
|
<
< | But, if examined from a different perspective, familyism carries some negative consequences as well. Families devote more resources to their members than to other individuals, leading to a disparity of wealth between different family units. Parents may, and often do, use their income to help their own child go to college or buy a car rather than help another’s child eat. However, it may be that families don’t cause inequality, but mitigate it, as without the family unit individuals would keep their resources to themselves rather than spread them around their families. |
>
> | But, familyism carries some negative consequences too. Families devote more resources to their members than to other individuals, leading to a disparity of wealth between different family units. Parents may, and often do, use their income to help their own child go to college or buy a car rather than help another’s child eat. However, it may be that families don’t cause inequality, but mitigate it, as without the family unit individuals would keep their resources to themselves rather than spread them around their families. |
| | |
|
<
< | Therefore, it appears that, in terms of effects, familyism has fewer negative consequences than racism, and arguably has some positive consequences which racism lacks. |
>
> | Nevertheless, it appears that, in terms of effects, familyism has fewer negative consequences than racism, and arguably has some positive consequences which racism lacks. |
| | Principles |
|
<
< | However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative consequences. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be fundamentally wrong. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. Putting people into groups is wrong because it is illogical (an individual cannot be accurately judged by the group they happen to be part of), it is destabilizing (it creates an “us v. them” mentality which inhibits the creation of a united society), and it causes injury to individuals (no one wants to feel less valued due to the group the judger has placed them in). This principle is violated just as much by familyism as it is by racism. |
| | \ No newline at end of file |
|
>
> | However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative effects. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be fundamentally wrong within themselves. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. This principle isn’t correct just because Dr. King said it, but because it actually makes sense. To judge someone by the group they were accidentally born into cannot be logically justified, and it hinders the development of a united society by slicing it up into differentiated sections. Avoiding these kind of value judgments is a good idea, but the familyist engages in them just as much as the racist does. |