4/6: Fourth Reading
Hey guys!
Along with that main argument, Aronson fills in the connections between the eternal prejudice and modern racism with boatloads of information. When I'm reading it, it doesn't seem to be argumentative or pushing a certain point. However, for the purpose of this blog assignment, I will focus on the argument above and show how Aronson gets this point across.
The first mention of this argument is at the beginning of the book when Aronson describes the Munduruku, a tribe that lives in Brazil. He examines the tribe's history, thousands of years ago, and explains that "They have one word for themselves, the Munduruku, the human beings. Everyone else is pariwat." (11). Aronson expresses the idea that this language was because pariwat or people who did not look like the original tribe could be dangerous. This early human instinct to defend oneself from danger could be one of the original influences of prejudice and later, racism. Aronson sums this up perfectly, saying "We experience fear and hatred so strongly because, at one time, it was the line between life and death." (12). His argument is evident here: the prejudice that we feel toward others could have stemmed from an ancient evolutionary mindset.
A little later in the book, Aronson touches upon the topic of the ancient Jews. At first, I didn't really understand why religion was coming into play here, but in the end, it served as effective evidence for Aronson's argument. Aronson describes the Jewish people as developing "[...] the brilliant new idea of a single god, and with it the ethical idea that all human beings are equal under him." (30). However, as this new group developed, they started to take on the mindset that they were God's chosen ones, and they were more special than everyone else (I briefly touched upon this in my first blog). Aronson writes, "The Jews invent one god, one law, for all humanity, but define themselves as special to God." (30). This sentence is what made everything click for me. Even though the topic of religion seemed random at first, Aronson was able to use this detail about the Jews to show the human tendency to consider themselves better than everybody else. Again, this evidence of separating from others proves that prejudice has always been a part of societies everywhere, and it doesn't always have to do with how the "strangers" look.
Another example of Aronson communicating his argument is when he starts to write about the Enlightenment era, which happened around the 18th century. This chapter, called "Viva la Libertà" ("Hurray for freedom!") served as a bridge between the old attitudes of prejudice and the modern way of thinking that is racism. Aronson describes the Enlightenment era in a very appealing way at first: "A wonderful new day seemed to be dawning. Reason and science would finally sweep away centuries of superstition, intolerance, and cruelty." (120). However, he explains that as scientific research got involved, and scientists started to find the "shining truth", the idea of race started to develop.
After describing how more and more experiments and research encouraged the prejudice that had always been present, Aronson closes out the chapter with a modern example: BiDil, which is a medicine specifically for African-Americans with heart disease. The medicine works most effectively on African-Americans, so that must mean that they have actual racial differences, right? Well, Aronson de-bunks this myth by providing information that not only proves this conclusion wrong but supports his argument: "[...] the study actually only showed that BiDil helped with hypertension- the type of heart disease African Americans tend to have- and, very likely, they suffer more from hypertension because of centuries of racism and social challenges, not any genetic similarity." (127). Aronson makes his point abundantly clear: our ideas of race and actual differences between races are only products of our past prejudices. BiDil seems to serve as a perfect metaphor for the argument here.
I hope you made it through this long blog entry! Sorry if I seemed to ramble a little bit here. This argument encompassed so much throughout the book that it was hard to shrink it down. Thanks for reading!
I've made it up to page 219 of Race. I really enjoyed this section, particularly because of how Aronson has applied all of the previous ideas from history to more modern events, like the Holocaust. In this section, I'm going to analyze the argument that Aronson is trying to make in this book.
Overall, I think that there was more a purpose of this book (to explain how the concept of race came to be) than an argument, but if I had to find one, I would say it's this: racism is more of a contemporary concept that our society has fabricated, but prejudice has existed since the beginning of time.
Overall, I think that there was more a purpose of this book (to explain how the concept of race came to be) than an argument, but if I had to find one, I would say it's this: racism is more of a contemporary concept that our society has fabricated, but prejudice has existed since the beginning of time.
Along with that main argument, Aronson fills in the connections between the eternal prejudice and modern racism with boatloads of information. When I'm reading it, it doesn't seem to be argumentative or pushing a certain point. However, for the purpose of this blog assignment, I will focus on the argument above and show how Aronson gets this point across.
The first mention of this argument is at the beginning of the book when Aronson describes the Munduruku, a tribe that lives in Brazil. He examines the tribe's history, thousands of years ago, and explains that "They have one word for themselves, the Munduruku, the human beings. Everyone else is pariwat." (11). Aronson expresses the idea that this language was because pariwat or people who did not look like the original tribe could be dangerous. This early human instinct to defend oneself from danger could be one of the original influences of prejudice and later, racism. Aronson sums this up perfectly, saying "We experience fear and hatred so strongly because, at one time, it was the line between life and death." (12). His argument is evident here: the prejudice that we feel toward others could have stemmed from an ancient evolutionary mindset.
A little later in the book, Aronson touches upon the topic of the ancient Jews. At first, I didn't really understand why religion was coming into play here, but in the end, it served as effective evidence for Aronson's argument. Aronson describes the Jewish people as developing "[...] the brilliant new idea of a single god, and with it the ethical idea that all human beings are equal under him." (30). However, as this new group developed, they started to take on the mindset that they were God's chosen ones, and they were more special than everyone else (I briefly touched upon this in my first blog). Aronson writes, "The Jews invent one god, one law, for all humanity, but define themselves as special to God." (30). This sentence is what made everything click for me. Even though the topic of religion seemed random at first, Aronson was able to use this detail about the Jews to show the human tendency to consider themselves better than everybody else. Again, this evidence of separating from others proves that prejudice has always been a part of societies everywhere, and it doesn't always have to do with how the "strangers" look.
Another example of Aronson communicating his argument is when he starts to write about the Enlightenment era, which happened around the 18th century. This chapter, called "Viva la Libertà" ("Hurray for freedom!") served as a bridge between the old attitudes of prejudice and the modern way of thinking that is racism. Aronson describes the Enlightenment era in a very appealing way at first: "A wonderful new day seemed to be dawning. Reason and science would finally sweep away centuries of superstition, intolerance, and cruelty." (120). However, he explains that as scientific research got involved, and scientists started to find the "shining truth", the idea of race started to develop.
After describing how more and more experiments and research encouraged the prejudice that had always been present, Aronson closes out the chapter with a modern example: BiDil, which is a medicine specifically for African-Americans with heart disease. The medicine works most effectively on African-Americans, so that must mean that they have actual racial differences, right? Well, Aronson de-bunks this myth by providing information that not only proves this conclusion wrong but supports his argument: "[...] the study actually only showed that BiDil helped with hypertension- the type of heart disease African Americans tend to have- and, very likely, they suffer more from hypertension because of centuries of racism and social challenges, not any genetic similarity." (127). Aronson makes his point abundantly clear: our ideas of race and actual differences between races are only products of our past prejudices. BiDil seems to serve as a perfect metaphor for the argument here.
I hope you made it through this long blog entry! Sorry if I seemed to ramble a little bit here. This argument encompassed so much throughout the book that it was hard to shrink it down. Thanks for reading!
Meg, you've done a nice job explaining what you see as the overall argument (which I think is very accurate) and you've woven quotes into the post to support your ideas well. If you think there is truth to Aronson's point, that this kind of prejudice has been around so long, is there any way to stop it? Does Aronson get to that idea at any point in the book?
ReplyDeleteAronson hasn't really elaborated on the solution to harmful prejudice yet. I'm interested in reading what his ideas are for this issue, because I am completely lost when I think about how to fix it. I mentioned this to Grace in one of my comments earlier. How is it going to be possible to change a widespread human tendency to separate from others?
DeleteGreat post Meg! Like you mentioned, I've also noticed in the book I'm reading that the author started with more historical examples, then followed them up with modern-day parallels. I think that this definitely helps to make the overall argument more convincing. I found your idea that the book has more of a purpose than an argument to be interesting, and when reading your post, I agreed with it. It definitely makes sense with the writing style and the topic that it isn't so much to convince people or take sides, but more to educate. The idea that racism ties back so far is crazy to think about, but it also makes sense. I think that's kind of a common queston that we as a society are constantly asking ourselves - are people born racist or are they taught it? I wonder if things were less blatantly racist in our current society (police brutality, etc.) if people would still feel that way, because I feel like our "survival instinct" is different now than it would have been in more ancient times. It's hard to say, but I find the entire question very interesting. Again, great post, and I'll look forward to hopefully being able to read your analysis soon!
ReplyDeleteThat's a very interesting idea. I have often questioned the same idea about whether or not people are born racist. Aronson mentions early in the book that it was an evolutionary component to separate people from other people in order to stay safe, and so I definitely believe that people might be born with that mindset, but I think our society has manifested the idea of racism all by itself with some influence from that ancient way of thinking.
Delete