The elephant is in the room, and nobody is talking about it. Why is it that race is such a charged matter? For me, that defines "racism" - not the typical negative comments/feelings towards another race, but rather that any distinction is paid to race at all (other than for scientific purposes, e.g. determining phenotype/genotype frequencies and healthcare outcomes). The focus on race itself is racism, and not all racism is necessarily "bad". I'm just calling a rose a rose.
This whole thought started when I kept hearing, repeatedly on NPR, reports of how "little race" mattered in the Presidential election, how they were so proud that exit polls showed race only placed a part in the decision-making process of who the next president will be in 8% of all voters.
Well, I have a different take. Look closely at the exit poll results, and as many of the pundits are pointing out, the blacks overwhelmingly chose Obama over McCain. Nearly 100% of blacks in New York state voted for Obama according to their exit polls - how can this not be a reflection of race?
One might argue that perhaps the blacks simply liked Obama's platform better, agreed more with his views and political position. While this might be true, I find it incredibly hard to believe that he won over nearly the entire black population by his politics. Obama only gathered around half of the white population (and whatever happened to non-whites, non-blacks: Asians, Latinos, etc?) I find it very hard to believe that the decision to vote for Obama was not motivated by race.
I'll admit - even I (had I voted) would've been tempted to vote for Obama simply because it would be a historic event, just as if Hilary had been a candidate I'm sure she would've gotten a strong boost from women voters just do demonstrate that it's possible (and for this reason I worry about 2012 election if Palin decides to jump in).
Anyway, this is fertile ground for arguments and disagreements, so I'll leave it here at that. I just feel people should acknowledge the poor elephant sitting in the room to whom nobody is paying any attention. This presidential election was strongly influenced by race, and for that reason I, too, worry about what the future may bring. If Obama manages to miraculously recover this country's economy in one term (I feel the American public will be impatient and give him only one term), then all is well. On the other hand, if he fails or if the economy gets worse (very likely given the current financial situation coupled with the continued drain on resources due to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan), he not only will be be blamed for the outcome (wrongly, I feel), but it would cast a dark shadow for any future black presidential candidate.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
In the pursuit of happiness
Just reading an old blog entry from a friend who pondered, "Is the pursuit of happiness all about selfishness? Can we achieve happiness without causing pain to others?"
I believe that the answer is "yes" to both questions. Happiness, by definition, is completely subjective and self-centered. True happiness comes only from being honest to one self, and therefore is "all about selfishness". One must disregard all other factors in the pursuit of happiness.
However, at the same time, there is no reason why happiness for one must cause pain for another. While one must entertain the possibility that happiness for two people can be mutually exclusive, a clear example where happiness is synergistic can be found in the traditional notion of a "romantic couple". It remains to be seen (at least for me) whether or not such a notion is entirely accurate or portrays a realistic scenario. More concrete examples can easily be found in the accomplishments of any group of people. Take, for instance, the profound joy and happiness the entire group of scientists and controllers at NASA must have felt on their Mars Rovers' success.
On the other hand, in any type of competition where there are clear winners and losers, happiness to the winner comes at the cost of pain to the losers. Life, I believe, is an eternal struggle - order against chaos at its most fundamental level. So while it might be said that happiness for one must come at a cost to others, considering that life is a constant competition (against death?) - that's a very narrow view precluding the possibility of cooperation, group formation, and team work.
I believe that the answer is "yes" to both questions. Happiness, by definition, is completely subjective and self-centered. True happiness comes only from being honest to one self, and therefore is "all about selfishness". One must disregard all other factors in the pursuit of happiness.
However, at the same time, there is no reason why happiness for one must cause pain for another. While one must entertain the possibility that happiness for two people can be mutually exclusive, a clear example where happiness is synergistic can be found in the traditional notion of a "romantic couple". It remains to be seen (at least for me) whether or not such a notion is entirely accurate or portrays a realistic scenario. More concrete examples can easily be found in the accomplishments of any group of people. Take, for instance, the profound joy and happiness the entire group of scientists and controllers at NASA must have felt on their Mars Rovers' success.
On the other hand, in any type of competition where there are clear winners and losers, happiness to the winner comes at the cost of pain to the losers. Life, I believe, is an eternal struggle - order against chaos at its most fundamental level. So while it might be said that happiness for one must come at a cost to others, considering that life is a constant competition (against death?) - that's a very narrow view precluding the possibility of cooperation, group formation, and team work.