Hello Humans, when it comes down to it, there are people who get paid to say the things I want to say. Since they do it for a living they put a lot of effort into it. It's not that I don't want to, it's just that I can't. I haven't the time to do so. So I decided to create a series (this early into the blog, I know...) where I give you information provided by professionals. Hopefully, they can speak with a certain clarity that I hope to achieve one day. So, here's the link: http://www.annals.org/content/125/8/675.full. Copy and paste it into your web browser and enjoy.
It's an article by Dr. Ritchie Witzig entitled The Medicalization of Race: Scientific Legitimization of a Flawed Social Construct. It's beautifully informative. What I like most is that it informs the reader that race has no scientific backing, and gives examples of how the concept of race can actually hurt.
I do not own this article. I have in no way contributed to the information therein. I am not trying to make a profit off of this article. My only motive with this article is to share its information with my readership. Also, I will gladly remove this article by demand of its owner.
Here's the link again: http://www.annals.org/content/125/8/675.full
Monday, January 4, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Why is a fiction a big deal then?
People, thinking the geographical differences in traits due to evolution were fundamental, began treating the geographical differences in traits as if they made people fundamentally different. In doing so, people were then able to justify inequalities based on these bad ideas. Our physical differences took meaning after that. With certain values placed upon our traits, people began to take them seriously when these values affected them negatively or positively.
It's very easy to dwell with inequality when inequality doesn't affect you, and it doesn't affect anyone you relate with. For example, it's quite simple to look over the poverty of a homeless person when you are not homeless. We come up with so many excuses why we can't part with our spare change. These excuses include: "They'll misspend it on drugs, "they should get a job," or (my favorite) "I once tried to do something nice for one of them and they turned my kindness down; so I said never again..." I suspect the people who use such excuses would not make them if they simultaneously had to taste the bitterness of homelessness, nor does it seem likely that people would make them against someone they loved. We we don't relate with something, it is easy to condemn it.
There's nothing wrong with condemning things, but one must first be certain that what they are condemning deserves it. This certainty cannot come from one's opinion, it must be based on some objective standard. For example, anyone is within their right to condemn rape. The reason they are is that objectively people own themselves, and no one has the right to make use of someone Else's property (in the case of rape, body) without permission. No one with a sound mind should be able to relate with rape. Thus, it is easy and good for those with a sound mind to condemn it. However, what about those without a sound mind? When they commit rape they may feel as though they could not help it. They may condemn the unfairness of the act, but not their doing the act. They can relate with not having a sound mind, and thus may be able to empathize with other's like them. Those with sound minds, however, cannot relate and condemn the entirety of rape. So, even if people do have a predisposition to rape we with sound minds do not let them off the hook (unless they are clearly insane). This would be a type of inequality.
So what about racial inequality? Races are a social construct, we make them up. However, even though races are incorporeal because we treat as if they are real and give them qualities, they can have effects on the real world.
One of these effects we've seen here in the United States. Not too long ago people where not allowed to enter into certain establishments, sit in certain areas of buses, or even look at someone with white skin because their skin was dark; or darker than the white-skinned people. Hopefully, the majority of us now see just how silly that all was, and how ignorant. I mean "ignorant" in the sense of not understanding or knowing. There were wonderful and inspiring people such as the Martin Luther King Jr. who fought for the rights of people, and against discrimination based on appearances. I admire Dr. King. The way he fought for people's rights against discrimination, I hope to fight to make people understand that such discrimination never had any real basis.
People look at "blacks" (understood as a construct) and see criminals, idiots, violent buffoons, etc. How amazingly far from the truth that is! Just because a person has dark skin does not entail anything about their character or ability. Here are some inspiring and positive dark-skinned people: Neil deGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist/ Director of the Hayden Planetarium), Bill Cosby (comedian/ activist), Oprah Winfrey, Mohammed Ali, Nelson Mandela, Tyra Banks, Will Smith, and more.
People have placed meaning to having brown skin, thus they treat brown skin people a certain way. We all have heard it among other "colors" as well. "Whites" aren't as athletic as "blacks," but are more educated than them. Asian people can't drive, but are really good at mathematics (even more so than whites), Indians speak like "boopady boopady," Arabs speak "Allah ka mushk ka muka," and the stereotypes go on. To each stereotype there is a kernel of truth, but people are not that simple.
Yet, we treat people as if they are that simple. I've actually seen women clutch their purses as I walked by. They try to do it subtly, but I see it. On the election of President Obama, I heard people saying "my president is black!" I thought that was very telling. Back in high school one of my classmates told another, "I thought Asian were supposed to be good at math." I could come up with a long list of examples like these, but I think you get the point.
Some people fit the stereotypes, but why? Is it because they're "black," "white," "Asian," or "Hispanic?" No! It because they have certain physical characteristics that society places certain values and meanings upon that these people buy into. Do you get it? We oppress each other! We try to shove each other into meaningless boxes. "You're white!" "You're black!" "You're Hispanic!" "You're Asian." Really people we all are just human. We are not these categories that we place each other in.
My brown skin or yours, or your white skin does not bestow upon us anything. Society does, but I believe that I am a big enough person to decided what I am. So I'll say it, "I am not black." I am me and all the interweaving impressions that make me who I am. I am not a color, nor are you!" You are also not black or white or anything else!
When we treat people as if they are, we give them reason to act upon the stereotypes. We do this especially when we justify inequalities based on it. "Blacks can't rise out of poverty because they're stupid!" "Whites will never again dominate in Football or Basketball, because blacks are better athletes." It's all silly.
You are a member of a proud species that is now taking its first feeble steps onto the cosmological stage. When we denote yourself as a color, you demote yourself to something less. I will no longer. If we can come to understand that race does not exist, then maybe will stop forcing people to adopt a "races" values. After that, maybe we'll be closer to some peace.
It's very easy to dwell with inequality when inequality doesn't affect you, and it doesn't affect anyone you relate with. For example, it's quite simple to look over the poverty of a homeless person when you are not homeless. We come up with so many excuses why we can't part with our spare change. These excuses include: "They'll misspend it on drugs, "they should get a job," or (my favorite) "I once tried to do something nice for one of them and they turned my kindness down; so I said never again..." I suspect the people who use such excuses would not make them if they simultaneously had to taste the bitterness of homelessness, nor does it seem likely that people would make them against someone they loved. We we don't relate with something, it is easy to condemn it.
There's nothing wrong with condemning things, but one must first be certain that what they are condemning deserves it. This certainty cannot come from one's opinion, it must be based on some objective standard. For example, anyone is within their right to condemn rape. The reason they are is that objectively people own themselves, and no one has the right to make use of someone Else's property (in the case of rape, body) without permission. No one with a sound mind should be able to relate with rape. Thus, it is easy and good for those with a sound mind to condemn it. However, what about those without a sound mind? When they commit rape they may feel as though they could not help it. They may condemn the unfairness of the act, but not their doing the act. They can relate with not having a sound mind, and thus may be able to empathize with other's like them. Those with sound minds, however, cannot relate and condemn the entirety of rape. So, even if people do have a predisposition to rape we with sound minds do not let them off the hook (unless they are clearly insane). This would be a type of inequality.
So what about racial inequality? Races are a social construct, we make them up. However, even though races are incorporeal because we treat as if they are real and give them qualities, they can have effects on the real world.
One of these effects we've seen here in the United States. Not too long ago people where not allowed to enter into certain establishments, sit in certain areas of buses, or even look at someone with white skin because their skin was dark; or darker than the white-skinned people. Hopefully, the majority of us now see just how silly that all was, and how ignorant. I mean "ignorant" in the sense of not understanding or knowing. There were wonderful and inspiring people such as the Martin Luther King Jr. who fought for the rights of people, and against discrimination based on appearances. I admire Dr. King. The way he fought for people's rights against discrimination, I hope to fight to make people understand that such discrimination never had any real basis.
People look at "blacks" (understood as a construct) and see criminals, idiots, violent buffoons, etc. How amazingly far from the truth that is! Just because a person has dark skin does not entail anything about their character or ability. Here are some inspiring and positive dark-skinned people: Neil deGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist/ Director of the Hayden Planetarium), Bill Cosby (comedian/ activist), Oprah Winfrey, Mohammed Ali, Nelson Mandela, Tyra Banks, Will Smith, and more.
People have placed meaning to having brown skin, thus they treat brown skin people a certain way. We all have heard it among other "colors" as well. "Whites" aren't as athletic as "blacks," but are more educated than them. Asian people can't drive, but are really good at mathematics (even more so than whites), Indians speak like "boopady boopady," Arabs speak "Allah ka mushk ka muka," and the stereotypes go on. To each stereotype there is a kernel of truth, but people are not that simple.
Yet, we treat people as if they are that simple. I've actually seen women clutch their purses as I walked by. They try to do it subtly, but I see it. On the election of President Obama, I heard people saying "my president is black!" I thought that was very telling. Back in high school one of my classmates told another, "I thought Asian were supposed to be good at math." I could come up with a long list of examples like these, but I think you get the point.
Some people fit the stereotypes, but why? Is it because they're "black," "white," "Asian," or "Hispanic?" No! It because they have certain physical characteristics that society places certain values and meanings upon that these people buy into. Do you get it? We oppress each other! We try to shove each other into meaningless boxes. "You're white!" "You're black!" "You're Hispanic!" "You're Asian." Really people we all are just human. We are not these categories that we place each other in.
My brown skin or yours, or your white skin does not bestow upon us anything. Society does, but I believe that I am a big enough person to decided what I am. So I'll say it, "I am not black." I am me and all the interweaving impressions that make me who I am. I am not a color, nor are you!" You are also not black or white or anything else!
When we treat people as if they are, we give them reason to act upon the stereotypes. We do this especially when we justify inequalities based on it. "Blacks can't rise out of poverty because they're stupid!" "Whites will never again dominate in Football or Basketball, because blacks are better athletes." It's all silly.
You are a member of a proud species that is now taking its first feeble steps onto the cosmological stage. When we denote yourself as a color, you demote yourself to something less. I will no longer. If we can come to understand that race does not exist, then maybe will stop forcing people to adopt a "races" values. After that, maybe we'll be closer to some peace.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
First things first: Evolution
Hello Humans. Before I tackle race, I think I should tackle one really important concept going forward, evolution. If I can be biased for a moment, to anyone being rational and objective, there is no argument to the validity of evolution. Evolution is fact. Epistemological reasoning says that there's always, technically, uncertainty; however evolution has passed every scientific test thrown against it. It is fact. Now, don't let this view of mine put you off from reading forward. In this post, I want to explain the basic tenets of evolution, handle some misconceptions of it, and then apply evolution to the current and currently only human species Homo Sapien Sapiens.
Evolution, what is it and what does it do? Here it will be best to separate it from different but related ideas. There's evolution, natural selection, and speciation. Evolution is the change in frequency of a gene. Natural selection is the (unthinking) process that decides which genes undergo evolution. Speciation is when a group of related organisms undergo enough evolutionary change that they can no longer successfully mate (reproduce fertile offspring) with the species they arose from.
As said above, evolution is the change in frequency of a gene. Sound too simple? Well, that's what it is! Take gene B for "buffness." Gene B allows for an organism to be quite muscular. Imagine a species named Wimpoids. Wimpoids are skinny, humanlike creatures that are very unimposing. For some reason, an individual among the wimpoids carries the mutation of gene B. He is buff. The other male wimpoids are afraid of this abnormally large individual. The female wimpoids have never been more attracted to a male wimpoid than they have this very capable looking fellow. Our muscular friend finds himself with his pick of any female wimpoid he desires. He chooses the most beautiful wimpoid as his mate. He copulates and has offspring. Only his sons have gene B, because its on the Y-chromosome (in humans, only men have the Y-chromosome). His sons get the same benefit of buffness, so they copulate most successfully. This continues for generations. Before it's realized, gene B is now shared among a sizable percentage of the wimpoid population. Gene B has undergone a frequency change. That is evolution!
Next up is natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which certain genes are selected for or against. Let's go back to the wimpoids. Gene B for buffness is now shared among a sizable portion of the wimpoid population. It has allowed its hosts to successfully mate. However, gene B, while making an individual buff, causes that same individual to be rather slow and lumbering. Really large muscles make it hard to move quickly. This hasn't been a problem for the wimpoids, but now for some reason a new predator has arrived on the scene. This predator is quick and fast with very sharp teeth, and its favorite delicacy is wimpoid flesh. Unfortunately now for all the buff wimpoids, they have become an easy treat for this new predator. The buff wimpoids are too slow to evade their ferociously quick new nemesis. Gene B, over generations, finds itself a rare gene once more as many of the buff wimpoids become feces. The wimpoid environment is now situated in such a way that gene B is no longer an advantageous gene to have. This would be selection against. Selection for would be something such as being more likely to mate because of the gene like in the example of evolution above.
Some of the buff wimpoids have left this new environment in which they cannot survive. Along with a few females, they go off in search for a new place to live. They find a place where they can settle down and not have to worry about being eaten for being too slow. They are now completely seperated from the original wimpoid population. What happens is that over the generations, through the process of natural selection, this seperate group of wimpoids become so drastically different from the original population that they are actually something new and different. This once estranged group are now Jockoids. Their ancestors were once wimpoids who became separated from the original population. So much change had taken place that these Jockoids cannot produce fertile offspring with the wimpoids. The jockoids are a new species. This is called speciation.
Here are some common misconceptions about evolution. Evolution is not a chance process. There are chance mutations that are selected for or against by natural selection by which we see evolution, but evolution is deliberate. It is so much so that we can easily make predictions on the evolution of a creature if we know the environmental pressures acting upon it. Evolution does not and is not meant to explain the origin of life, it is meant to explain the diversity of life (which it does beautifully). Evolution does not explain the origin of the universe. Evolution explains why life takes so many different forms. Evolution is not "just a theory." It is more than a guess, in other words. It is called the theory of evolution, but "theory" means something quite specific in scientific jargon. In science a "theory" is a hypothesis that has been confirmed through scientific experimentation and explains a group of facts or phenomena. In science, a theory is a fact, unlike a conjecture in colloquial usage. Evolution does not equal speciation. Speciation may result from evolution but need not. Also, there is no such thing as "Darwinism," just like there is no such thing as Newtonism, Keplerianism, Einsteinism, or Hubbleism. I believe I've observed even the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins using this term.
Now, I do not have the drive to give a complete account of human evolution. I'll leave that for you to look up. What's important to me is that through the long process of human evolution there wound up one and only one human species: homo sapien sapiens. Each and every human being alive today is a member of this species of which there are no subspecies. We are all exactly the same creature. Many people look around and say, "but there are obviously different groups of people!" This is not so. The categorization of human beings into (usually) five different main groups has no scientific merit. Common sense fails us here, essentially. One may wonder, then, what accounts for these differences between people. It's evolution that accounts for these differences. Now understand that evolution does not equal speciation. Evolution has taken place in human beings, but has not separated us into what we can label as "races."
The reason that around the world people look different is due to evolution. The first members of our species had dark skin to protect from powerful solar radiation in the areas of Africa. White skin developed most likely to be receptive enough to the relatively weaker solar radiation in the areas of Europe, for example. All human traits were developed in response to environmental pressures. As our species dispersed across the planet we developed many traits. It came to the point that the closer you were to a certain group, the more genes you shared with them. The further you were away, the less genes you shared with a group. This is all due to the fact that we usually mate with people close to us. That's really it. This is why Europeans look different from Africans, why Asiatic peoples look different from Europeans and so on. The fact is that we never speciated. To prove this take an African and a Asian, have them mate, and see that if they can produce fertile offspring (barring some genetic or physical misfortune on the offspring's behalf). If they can, they are of the same species. All of our DNA is almost 100% similar. Every human being is basically a clone. If this is the case, then human "races" doesn't make sense.
Evolution has lead to different traits among human beings, more of which are shared to those in close proximity to each other and less for those who are further apart. We have not speciated from this process. The near perfect similarity of each person's genetic code makes the idea of race absurd.
The natural question to follow is, "then why do people treat race as real, and if it's not real why has it had so much of an impact on our society?"
Evolution, what is it and what does it do? Here it will be best to separate it from different but related ideas. There's evolution, natural selection, and speciation. Evolution is the change in frequency of a gene. Natural selection is the (unthinking) process that decides which genes undergo evolution. Speciation is when a group of related organisms undergo enough evolutionary change that they can no longer successfully mate (reproduce fertile offspring) with the species they arose from.
As said above, evolution is the change in frequency of a gene. Sound too simple? Well, that's what it is! Take gene B for "buffness." Gene B allows for an organism to be quite muscular. Imagine a species named Wimpoids. Wimpoids are skinny, humanlike creatures that are very unimposing. For some reason, an individual among the wimpoids carries the mutation of gene B. He is buff. The other male wimpoids are afraid of this abnormally large individual. The female wimpoids have never been more attracted to a male wimpoid than they have this very capable looking fellow. Our muscular friend finds himself with his pick of any female wimpoid he desires. He chooses the most beautiful wimpoid as his mate. He copulates and has offspring. Only his sons have gene B, because its on the Y-chromosome (in humans, only men have the Y-chromosome). His sons get the same benefit of buffness, so they copulate most successfully. This continues for generations. Before it's realized, gene B is now shared among a sizable percentage of the wimpoid population. Gene B has undergone a frequency change. That is evolution!
Next up is natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which certain genes are selected for or against. Let's go back to the wimpoids. Gene B for buffness is now shared among a sizable portion of the wimpoid population. It has allowed its hosts to successfully mate. However, gene B, while making an individual buff, causes that same individual to be rather slow and lumbering. Really large muscles make it hard to move quickly. This hasn't been a problem for the wimpoids, but now for some reason a new predator has arrived on the scene. This predator is quick and fast with very sharp teeth, and its favorite delicacy is wimpoid flesh. Unfortunately now for all the buff wimpoids, they have become an easy treat for this new predator. The buff wimpoids are too slow to evade their ferociously quick new nemesis. Gene B, over generations, finds itself a rare gene once more as many of the buff wimpoids become feces. The wimpoid environment is now situated in such a way that gene B is no longer an advantageous gene to have. This would be selection against. Selection for would be something such as being more likely to mate because of the gene like in the example of evolution above.
Some of the buff wimpoids have left this new environment in which they cannot survive. Along with a few females, they go off in search for a new place to live. They find a place where they can settle down and not have to worry about being eaten for being too slow. They are now completely seperated from the original wimpoid population. What happens is that over the generations, through the process of natural selection, this seperate group of wimpoids become so drastically different from the original population that they are actually something new and different. This once estranged group are now Jockoids. Their ancestors were once wimpoids who became separated from the original population. So much change had taken place that these Jockoids cannot produce fertile offspring with the wimpoids. The jockoids are a new species. This is called speciation.
Here are some common misconceptions about evolution. Evolution is not a chance process. There are chance mutations that are selected for or against by natural selection by which we see evolution, but evolution is deliberate. It is so much so that we can easily make predictions on the evolution of a creature if we know the environmental pressures acting upon it. Evolution does not and is not meant to explain the origin of life, it is meant to explain the diversity of life (which it does beautifully). Evolution does not explain the origin of the universe. Evolution explains why life takes so many different forms. Evolution is not "just a theory." It is more than a guess, in other words. It is called the theory of evolution, but "theory" means something quite specific in scientific jargon. In science a "theory" is a hypothesis that has been confirmed through scientific experimentation and explains a group of facts or phenomena. In science, a theory is a fact, unlike a conjecture in colloquial usage. Evolution does not equal speciation. Speciation may result from evolution but need not. Also, there is no such thing as "Darwinism," just like there is no such thing as Newtonism, Keplerianism, Einsteinism, or Hubbleism. I believe I've observed even the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins using this term.
Now, I do not have the drive to give a complete account of human evolution. I'll leave that for you to look up. What's important to me is that through the long process of human evolution there wound up one and only one human species: homo sapien sapiens. Each and every human being alive today is a member of this species of which there are no subspecies. We are all exactly the same creature. Many people look around and say, "but there are obviously different groups of people!" This is not so. The categorization of human beings into (usually) five different main groups has no scientific merit. Common sense fails us here, essentially. One may wonder, then, what accounts for these differences between people. It's evolution that accounts for these differences. Now understand that evolution does not equal speciation. Evolution has taken place in human beings, but has not separated us into what we can label as "races."
The reason that around the world people look different is due to evolution. The first members of our species had dark skin to protect from powerful solar radiation in the areas of Africa. White skin developed most likely to be receptive enough to the relatively weaker solar radiation in the areas of Europe, for example. All human traits were developed in response to environmental pressures. As our species dispersed across the planet we developed many traits. It came to the point that the closer you were to a certain group, the more genes you shared with them. The further you were away, the less genes you shared with a group. This is all due to the fact that we usually mate with people close to us. That's really it. This is why Europeans look different from Africans, why Asiatic peoples look different from Europeans and so on. The fact is that we never speciated. To prove this take an African and a Asian, have them mate, and see that if they can produce fertile offspring (barring some genetic or physical misfortune on the offspring's behalf). If they can, they are of the same species. All of our DNA is almost 100% similar. Every human being is basically a clone. If this is the case, then human "races" doesn't make sense.
Evolution has lead to different traits among human beings, more of which are shared to those in close proximity to each other and less for those who are further apart. We have not speciated from this process. The near perfect similarity of each person's genetic code makes the idea of race absurd.
The natural question to follow is, "then why do people treat race as real, and if it's not real why has it had so much of an impact on our society?"
Thursday, October 22, 2009
What this page is about (an introduction).
Hello Humans, welcome to my page. Some way or another, you have stumbled across this little insignificant soapbox of mine. This page will be where I'll post my arguments for why the concept of race (being scientifically unfounded) should be done away with. My aim is to approach this with a scholarly bent. I'll do my best to find arguments pro and con for race and give my reactions to them. Many times, though, you'll find me speaking off-the-cuff, letting you into my personal feelings about the topic (it is my blog, afterall). Do not worry. I don't plan on boring you with post after post of me waxing philosophic. My aim is to create discussion about race to provoke a dialectic that, hopefully, will slowly begin to undermine it as a valuable concept in our society. That being said, I welcome your arguments in the comment section, though only serious and respectful arguments will be entertained. Once again, welcome to my page. Now I guess I'll explain why I've begun this campaign against the concept of race.
Like so many people, I took the concept of race as given. It seemed obvious that there were black people, white people, asian people, hispanic people, and others. It was one of many dogmas that infested and cluttered my mind with their unquestioned statuses of being true. I probably would've held this belief until my death had science not enlightened me. Race among human beings had no scientific backing. In fact, the science on race says that we are all exactly the same thing. There are no subspecies of Homo Sapien. The differences in appearance, which are real, are only evolutionary responses to the various environments that humans have moved into. These differences are superficial and do not underscore that there are different races among human beings.
Well, after science had corrected my false assumption, being the rational man that I like to believe I am, I had to let go of the illusion of race. The next question was, what is race then? It is a sociological construct. It is made up, basically. Like many things that are made up, there is a kernel of truth. That kernel was that there are physical differences among self-ascribed human groups. Humans took these differences and gave them meaning. You might very well know what these meanings are. One of them is the idea that "I am (insert race(s) here) and he/she/they is/are (insert race(s) here)." When something like this is said, the speaker usually means that there is some fundamental difference among who they are versus another person who is supposedly not like them. I no longer believe this, and my hope is that with time others will come not to believe it either.
With this blog I hope to do as much as I can to try to eliminate what I believe to be a harmful idea. I don't expect much, but maybe I could reach a few other minds and sway them to my view. I'm going to attack this concept in as many ways as I can here. I won't go into all of them now. You'll just have to keep reading to find out. If you plan on being a consistent reader of this blog, get comfortable. Ideas such as this one take a long time to rub out. Seek truth.
Like so many people, I took the concept of race as given. It seemed obvious that there were black people, white people, asian people, hispanic people, and others. It was one of many dogmas that infested and cluttered my mind with their unquestioned statuses of being true. I probably would've held this belief until my death had science not enlightened me. Race among human beings had no scientific backing. In fact, the science on race says that we are all exactly the same thing. There are no subspecies of Homo Sapien. The differences in appearance, which are real, are only evolutionary responses to the various environments that humans have moved into. These differences are superficial and do not underscore that there are different races among human beings.
Well, after science had corrected my false assumption, being the rational man that I like to believe I am, I had to let go of the illusion of race. The next question was, what is race then? It is a sociological construct. It is made up, basically. Like many things that are made up, there is a kernel of truth. That kernel was that there are physical differences among self-ascribed human groups. Humans took these differences and gave them meaning. You might very well know what these meanings are. One of them is the idea that "I am (insert race(s) here) and he/she/they is/are (insert race(s) here)." When something like this is said, the speaker usually means that there is some fundamental difference among who they are versus another person who is supposedly not like them. I no longer believe this, and my hope is that with time others will come not to believe it either.
With this blog I hope to do as much as I can to try to eliminate what I believe to be a harmful idea. I don't expect much, but maybe I could reach a few other minds and sway them to my view. I'm going to attack this concept in as many ways as I can here. I won't go into all of them now. You'll just have to keep reading to find out. If you plan on being a consistent reader of this blog, get comfortable. Ideas such as this one take a long time to rub out. Seek truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)