Cleansing Tears

by Carrie Johansen

"for brave Americans I will never meet, cousins, and classmates."

The blades whirl beneath me on the blue Dixon as I cut
a path through field grasses taller than I am, seated on
the old mower. The cracked seat--strips of fake leather
curling up, scratching my thighs below my shorts. Mom
decided against this eye-sore that fills the back third of our
7.3 acre plot, but I like the smell of the untouched grass
that can shock the brain with too big of a breath. We used to
hid in the grass, leave Mom calling "Kids, come inside. It's
time for supper" as we ate Fruit-By-The-Foot. But my brother's
been gone 16 days; he knew to wear basketball shorts, down
to the knee to save his legs from the grating of soft flesh on a torn
seat. That's why the Army called--even they knew he was smart.
I push my right hand forward to turn to the left, curve around
a tree, wonder how crickets will find new homes. This whir
sends specks of dust and shredded grass into my face. I
release the rubber-coated handles, slow the mower to an
idle. The blades continue to spin as I close my eyes, let tears
rinse out the invading irritants that attack my pupils. The whir
of my machine turns into the rumbling of a helicopter, and
I imagine my brother's silhouette against the sky, backlit and
framed by that Hollywood shot of an open Army helicopter.
The blue sky against his brown, green, black camouflage with
a pack I've never seen strapped to his back. He looks down, ready
to jump, free fall, then pull a cord I pray will save his life. The
whirring continues as he jumps, and I can't help but wonder
if my brother is going to cut down overgrown grass, shower locals
with bullets, rinse the land in the tears of those forced to find new homes.

Exclusivism, Inclusivism or Pluralism: where does the Bible stand?

In my Religion 100 class our first assignment was to read 30 or so pages out of a book titled Encountering God: A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras by Diana L. Eck. The chapter was titled "Is Our God Listening?" and explains exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism through the lenses of major world religions. Before I can get to my inquiring thought, here's a summary of the 30 pages (keep in mind I have just learned these terms. I am by no means an expert, so I will try to use quotes as much as possible. And I realize this is a longer post, but I think it's necessary):

Exclusivism:
"Our own community, our tradition, our understanding of reality, our encounter with God, is the one and only truth, excluding all others" (168).
"Exclusivism is more than simply a conviction about the transofamtive power of the particular visioin one has; it is a conviction about its finality and its absolute priority over competing views. Exclusivism may therefore be the ideological foundation for isolationism. The exclusivist response to diversity, whether theological, social, or political, is to mark ever more clearly the boundaries and borders separating 'us' from 'them'. It is little wonder that exclusion has been one of the tools of racism and ethnocentrism" (174).

Inclusivism:
"the presupposition [of inclusivism] is that in the end ours is the truth wide enough to include all. Ours are the terms in which truth is stated" (179).
"The Catholic church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in [other] religions. she has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflet a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (2 Cor. 5:18-19), men find the fulness of their religious life" (182)
**The main difference definitively between the exclusivist "there is only one right answer, and ours is it" and this apparent admission that parts of other religions could be correct is the following:
"[in Karl] Rahner's inclusivist scheme my Hindu friends are baptized "anonymous Christians" and Muslims are save by the meditation and grace of Christ, even though this certainly violates their self-understanding" (183). In other words, my religion is right, but the Superior Being's love and grace is wide enough to accept/forgive/save those of different religions.

Pluralism:
"Religious pluralism requires active positive engagement with the claims of religion and he facts of religious diversity. . . [it is] the seeking of understanding" (192). Eck asserts that it is not relativism, but it assumes a real commitment to a particular religion. Basically, I may be Jewish but I must realize that my beliefs are founded on my experiences. Therefore, they are true for me. "Matters of truth and value are relative to our conceptual framework and worldview, even those matters of truth that we speak of as divinely ordained" (193). There are type of relativism that deny any concrete religious absolutes (nihilistic relativism) or lack commitment, but Eck asserts that true pluralism has both openness AND commitment. It is based on respect for differences and interreligious dialogue that would bring "mutual transformation".


Here's my quandary: Where do I fit in and where SHOULD the Bible fit in?
I am an exclusivist, because I believe that it is only possible for there to be one truth. Pluralism doesn't make sense to me, because if other religions are correct, than why should I tie myself down to one? Why not learn something from all of them and say "we'll all be saved. It's fine". Not to mention that THIS belief would be the ultimate truth.... BUT I am not an exclusivist, because Eck assigns exclusivism a negative feeling. As if by believing there is one explanation to it all, I will shut myself off from the world, isolate myself, judge others, and not listen to anything they have to say. The language of "saved" and "unsaved" does draw lines, but they are not necessarily walls. Not to mention the fact that they are lines that I believe God alone can draw.

So, in that sense, I am an inclusivist. I believe that because of humankind's common experience (spiritual beings, utter chaos and depravity, need for a superior being, etc) it would make sense for different religions have commonalities. Since other religions could have parts of truth in it, I can learn from them. In dialogue, I could be challenged to pursuit a train of thought I had not explored. Statements like the following make sense to me: "Truth is one, but the wise call it by many names" (a Hindu quote that I agree with: God is Truth, and he has many names. Not only that, but our finite minds cannot comprehend his vastness, so we describe his many facets in many ways).
However, I am not an inclusivist, because while I may be hesitant to draw the line between the "saved" and "unsaved" (completely different topic as to why that's in quotes. Maybe another time.), I believe that a line needs to be drawn. Jesus talks about separating the sheep from the goats--his followers from those pretending. He talks about those who will get to heaven and be turned away. It is clear, according to the Bible, that some will chose to abandon God and will therefore spend eternity apart from Him.
I am a pluralist in the sense that I believe we need to understand other religions, but not just the religions, the people. The Bible tells us to love one another. It says to love our enemies as we love ourselves. So, we need to do more than tolerate differences; we need to love the people. We need to respect them, and we need to talk to them to do so! All of these attributes which seem to be a no-brainer to me (understanding, respecting, talking, etc), are assigned by Eck to the pluralist and no one else. So, according to Eck, I am a pluralism. Except I'm not, because I don't think pluralism makes sense.

So, where does that leave me? I have some exclusivist beliefs, but I think Christians, and all people, should relate to the world in a more pluralistic manner. And yet, inclusivism makes the most sense. But it doesn't. The Bible clearly says that some will perish, but it also says that God is the judge and we are to love each other.
Maybe the answer isn't which category we fall into or which category we should fall into. Maybe it's not Where does the Bible stand? or How can I prove I am right? but rather that the categories are wrong. While helpful to understand worldviews, I don't believe that the categories can actually apply to religious persons. Example: If Christianity falls, let's just say, in the inclusivist category. Than would it be possible for a Christian to be an exclusivist? no. That person would be using an inappropriate label, that of the "Christian". Personally, I think that it's not either/or. Is it either inclusivist OR pluralist? Should I be either an exclusivist or something else? I think it's AND. Christ teaches that there is a definitive right and wrong, but we need to love all with the crazy, selfless love with which he loves us. So, the labels might be helpful to explain belief systems, but it's completely off when trying to describe Christ. and what is Christianity without Christ?

The Origin of Evil & Free Will

In John 8:42-58, Jesus is confronting religious leaders about their inability to identify Him as God. While doing so, He says "you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies" (v.44)
This makes sense to me. The devil is the icon for evil. He is evil... God's foil character if you will.

God is good, and all He creates is so as well. God created the universe, and it was good. He is all things beautiful, loving, pure, holy, and He is the very definition of goodness. He exists outside of time and space without beginning or end. Before there was anything, there was God.
Meaning this struggle between the devil and God that we are living will end. We know how it will end, too. God will win, because He has the real power and has existed long before Lucifer.
Here's one thing I often overlook: the devil, aka Lucifer, was an archangel created by God to be beside the infamous Gabriel and Michael. God created him, and he was beautiful.
So, if everything that God exists is beautiful and good, than Lucifer was good at one point. Right?
Then where did evil show up?
God is Love, and true love is not forced. When He created the angels, and later humans, He gave us free will. He wanted us to be able to choose Him, so there must have been the opportunity to NOT chose Him. If God is love, all things good, pure, beautiful and holy, than the option apart from Him must be none of those things. Thus, sin is a rejection of God. Abuse is the opposite of love, lies the opposite of truth, corruption of purity, etc. So, in a sense, evil was "created" when God gave us the option to NOT choose Him. But, is acknowledging the lack of something really creating something? A hole is the lack of dirt in the ground, but one cannot hold a hole or manufacture it. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. These concepts were not necessarily created, per se, but we consider them things.
Back to John 8. If God gave us the option to not choose Him, how could Jesus say that the devil had "no truth in him . . . he is a liar and the father of lies". Didn't God create the option and Lucifer simply choose it? Yes and NO. Example: a parent who says their child can stay or leave home at 18 is not responsible for the cruel world that s/he encounters if s/he leaves. The parent did not create the world, but the lack of family/home/etc is what the child chose when leaving. When rejecting the safety, love and acceptance of home, the young adult unknowingly accepted the other option... the complete lack of it.
Basically, was sin more theoretical until Lucifer committed it? When he chose to not choose God, he chose defiance. He chose death, destruction, lies, cruelty... everything that God stands opposed to. In a sense, God opened the door for it to be done (while knowing it would be, because He knows all), and Lucifer "created" sin. Maybe.

I'm just thinking.

Thinking without words.

I was thinking about words the other day, and I stumbled upon a quandary:
When we think, we contemplate in sentences. If we don't understand it, we can't find words to explain it. Finding the right word to fit an emotion, a situation, or a particular phenomenon is what helps us wrap our minds around something and understand it. When we learn new languages, we process in our native tongue and translate for a while before becoming fluent enough to possibly "think in another language".
So here's the question: What if we didn't have language?
We know that pre-born children feel pain and recognize certain voices (mother, father, common sounds, etc), but can they form a thought? Obviously not in the sense that we explain it, but could there be something else? Maybe that's why a 7 year old can't remember what it felt like to be in the womb, but a 70 year old can remember his/her 16th birthday. It's not the time elapsed, it's the language in which we frame memories and thoughts. Maybe. Because while that makes sense, I find it pretty impossible that babies, prior to learning to speak, cannot think. So where's the raw emotion, experience, or THING that we use words to capture? and does putting whatever it is down in words diminish its magnanimity? Maybe music is called the language of the soul, because it awakens love, hate, joy and pain without words. (Even in songs with lyrics, the words mean nothing without musical intent behind them and an inspiring texture)
I don't know, but I'll ask this: What would life be like if we needed to really feel and learn how to recognize others' feelings to communicate?

Stars & Life

Last night I was at a friend's party when some of us wandered outside to look at the stars. Aside from the fact that stars are beautiful, I saw my first shooting star. I'm not sure how I can love looking at stars so much and not have ever seen one before, but that's pretty irrelevant. The night sky is simply breathtaking and most people know that. I was struck by how small and insignificant I am by the beauty and sheer magnitude of it all. Think about it... I occupy a small percentage of land on my friend's property, not to mention the city, state or world, and my life will only come into contact with a limited number of people in my lifetime. Even if my life ends up being big, by the world's standards, and everyone in America knows who I am, throughout the course of history I will be gone. Like a star that burns out, I could continue to have an impact, but it will eventually be gone. I live on Earth for a small fraction of its existence, and my life while on that Earth is yet another small fraction of all life. So, when taking in statistical importance: my life is nothing.
And yet, by the simple fact that I stopped and noticed the beauty of stars much older, and some younger, than myself, I was contradicting the observation that a single being is nothing. A majestic sky full of stars would not be one without each individual star. You cannot look at all of the stars at the same time, so one must observe a single star or a small group of them at a time. And when I realized that I was looking at one star, I wondered: where is that star? How old is it? Has it already burnt out? and then it hit me. We are all stars (as we've probably heard a million times). We can appreciate the beauty of the whole sky, or the whole world, but we can only really observe a few stars at a time. Who we spend our time with and if we wonder enough to really get to know them is what brings a little more beauty to this human experience. So while I may not be the North Star, I am a star just the same, and I know that how I live my life can be a small part of the picture of a larger Beauty.

Evolution: A Science or Faith?

A reaction essay to the theory evolution, written Spring 2006.

Evolution. Most Americans have a general idea of what it is, and most have an opinion about its validity. However, most Americans do not realize that the theory of Evolution is a complicated theory with many new definitions and vague concepts. What is evolution? To really answer this question, one must break it down into somewhat simpler questions. What kind of evolution is being discussed? How does it work? Does the fossil record prove this theory? Does it disprove this theory? How has the theory changed in response? These are the questions that bring clarity to the evolution issue and determine if it is a sound science or a theoretical faith.

When someone says ‘evolution,’ I always wonder. What do they mean? Cosmic evolution? Chemical evolution? Organic evolution? Planetary evolution? Most people are referring to “all the changes that have formed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today.” This is the definition of evolution according to the Modern Biology textbook’s glossary. However, this definition is an example of the over generalization of most definitions. It falls short in even mentioning that there are 6 types of evolution, let alone specifying which one it is talking about. This definition is partially accurate for the theory of macroevolution, but does not even touch microevolution. These are the most confused types of evolution. Macroevolution is the gradual change over long periods of time resulting in a variety of species (new large taxonomic groups). Microevolution is change within a species resulting in a variety of sub-species (new sub-groups on a taxonomic level). The change of an entire organism gradually over time is a drastically different theory than a change in the structure of a bird’s beak or the coloring of a moth. This is the blatant difference between macroevolution and its confusing partner with a similar name- microevolution. Most references to evolution refer to macroevolution, but all the evidence supports microevolution. Darwin’s finches on the Galápagos Island showed a variety of body size and beak structure. These finches and other animals on Galápagos show that microevolution-variation within a species- still occurs. It says nothing about macroevolution. However, the use of one generic term for two distinctly different concepts allows for one to say an experiment may prove evolution (referring to microevolution) and leave the impression of proof of macroevolution. With a general understanding of the difference between microevolution and macroevolution, one can start to ask another question.

How does it work? Both types of evolution claim to use natural selection, but natural selection is a commonly misunderstood term. On page 284, Modern Biology discusses natural selection. Natural selection is defined as a process in which “organisms best suited to their environment reproduce more successfully than other organisms.” In other words, nature selects traits to continue in existence by allowing certain animals with those traits to reproduce more rapidly. However, a vital part of the definition is often missed. In natural selection, variation possibilities are reduced, not increased, because it selects some previously existing genes and eliminates other genes. Mendel’s laws of genetics state that genes are rearranged from one generation to another, and new combinations are made, not new genes. This helps account for the variation within species such as birds, cats, and dogs. Natural selection does not come close to explaining the origin of species (macroevolution), but Mendel’s law of genetics explains diversity within them (microevolution). By making gene pools less diverse, natural selection would actually prevent macroevolution from taking place.

Does the fossil record show macroevolution? If all organisms on earth evolved, there should be countless intermediate fossils. One would be laughed at, even in evolutionary circles, for saying there are countless intermediate fossils, because no credible fossils exist. As I say ‘none exist,’ I am sure you’re thinking about Lucy, and possibly the Neanderthals. Most people, and scientists, concentrate on the most obvious missing link in the theoretical evolutionary chain- the link between humans and apes. Chapter 17 section 2 of Modern Biology is titled “Fossil Evidence of Hominid Evolution.” Curiously, I read about Australopithecus afarensis (more commonly called “Lucy”). While the video Origins implies that Lucy is an ancestor to common man, Modern Biology contradicts that by stating that her descendants were probably not human ancestors at all (Both of these believe, in some way, that Lucy helps prove macroevolution.). However, Richard Leaky, one of the best-known fossil anthropologists, said that no firm conclusion could be drawn as to what species Lucy even belonged to! Leaky also found a normal human skull under a layer of rock dated 212 million years, over 200 million years older than Lucy. The video Origins also showed that Lucy’s fossils not only came from different spots, they were gathered a year apart. When a modern knee grouped with fossils thought to be hundreds of millions of years old stumped archaeologists, they searched for another answer. After “copying” the fossil, one archaeologist began to sand and rearrange Lucy’s “copy” to make her capable of walking upright (a feature thought to bring consistency, and thus credibility, to their discovery). This altered creation was presented as proof of macroevolution. I usually relate aspects of life to law, and this intentional alteration stuck out like a sore thumb. In the legal world, this could be called calculated fraud and tampering with evidence. Highly illegal, this evidence would not be permissible in a courtroom. If such false exhibits were revealed, there would be stern punishments and possible jail time. However, according to many evolutionists, it is called proof. In reality, Australopithecines (discussed on page 325 of Modern Biology) are surprisingly apelike in form, limb proportions, and premolar dentition and great evidence that they swung from trees exists. They are unique, and many are investigating claims of living Australopithecines in Sumatra today. After scrutiny, Lucy’s credibility is greatly questionable, and most experts now agree Lucy was only an unusual chimpanzee, not a missing link. As for the Neanderthals, every fossil I researched has either great evidence of tampering and reconstructing in its history, or has been proven inaccurate. “Neanderthal Man,” for example, has been shown to be the skeleton of an elderly man who suffered from arthritis. This lack of credible science creates great doubt in my mind to the accuracy of claims of human-ape fossils. You may be asking, “If so many fossil links are missing, why is macroevolution considered true?” That’s a good question, but a more disturbing question is formed when taking a look at the rest of the fossil layers.

Does the fossil record disprove macroevolution? First, lets look at the “geologic column.” This chart is a drawing of layers of earth ranging in complexity. The lowest, oldest, and least complex layer lies at the bottom, and the top layer is today. This chart is the theory of evolution put into paper. How does it work? If you have a fossil from a certain layer, an “index fossil,” paleontologists will estimate its age by what layer it was found in. However, if you ask how they found the original age of the layer, it is by the age of the fossils it contains! This is circular reasoning. However, for the sake of argument lets assume this fallacy does not exist. Figure 15-1b of Modern Biology claims the trilobite was a dominant life form in early seas. The trilobite is a common index fossil, but what happens when they’re found in the same layer as humans? Evolutionists claim trilobites became extinct 240 million years before humans evolved, yet in 1968 William J. Meister found fossilized human shoeprints, not footprints, with an obvious fossilized trilobite under the heel. Most evolutionists claim the coelacanth is an index fossil dating layers at least 70 million years old, but living coelacanths exist today. Many upsets and inconsistencies with this chart exist, because nowhere on earth is such a complete progression of rock layers found! The geologic column exists on paper alone. Close examination of macroevolutionary “proof” shows that it is not proof at all. The links between species don’t exist, and true science is disproving it every day.

How have evolutionists dealt with theses holes in their theory? Section 16-3 of Modern Biology talks openly about animals in the fossil record existing without change for long periods of time. And then, out of nowhere, rapid change. The theory of punctuated equilibrium is an attempt to maintain the credibility of evolution with this evidence. This theory says that between these long periods of no evolution, there are sudden periods of rapid macroevolution. I simply can’t see how this does not contradict macroevolution! I thought macroevolution was “the gradual change over long periods of time resulting in a variety of species.” How, then is punctuated equilibrium an evolutionary response to the missing links in the fossil record? This is a major inconsistency within the theory itself. Wouldn’t “the sudden shift in form that is often seen in the fossil record” disprove the gradual change over time? I see this as an attempt to use the lack of fossil evidence as evidence itself. The fossil record disproves evolution, and the theory of punctuated equilibrium is an open acknowledgement of that.

Science is supposed to be free of bias, but the more I study, the more I realize that that isn’t so. Everyone has a bias, even I have a bias. Everyone believes what they believe, and we all bring that to the table when we interpret facts. However, many people don’t realize that. Generalizations and confusing scientific words loose people in the world of “the educated,” and most people simply take a scientist’s words at face value, not realizing the bias in the facts’ interpretation. Natural selection, Darwin’s method for evolution, would prevent macroevolution from occurring. The fossil record shows macroevolution did not occur, and evolutionists have admitted it did not occur with their creation of punctuated equilibrium. “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science," Darwin said in an unpublished letter to a Harvard biology professor on the eve of the publication of his On the Origin of Species. I wonder why we’re taught generic evolution in science class when the creator of the supposed main mechanism realized it wasn’t science. Darwin stated: “the fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory. Is it then a science or faith?" Learning about theories in public schools is one thing, but learning about faith is another.

Information other than Biology textbook (Modern Biology) & classroom film (Origins):

http://www.darwin-literature.com/l_quotes.html. Accessed on May 12, 2006.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html. Accessed on May 12, 2006.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/focus.asp. Accessed on May 12, 2006.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lucy.asp. Accessed on May 12, 2006.

“Big Daddy?” pamphlet by Dr. Kent Hovind. (See www.drdino.com for info on Dr. Hovind)

In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D.

Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation by Dennis R. Petersen.

Define a Definition.

Written winter 2008.

Define a definition.

Throughout the 2008 presidential election, race was a large issue. People accused others of being racist, there was discussion about whether “America is ready” or not, and the President-elect's ethnic background adds to the continuation of discussion. Although “race” is a generally understood term, its broadly defined nature creates false and potentially damaging divisions within humankind. As discussions about race and ethnicity permeate society, one must take a step back and wonder what makes a person a particular race. Is it appearance? A biological difference? Social upbringing? Languages, customs, lifestyles or other factors that vary by geographical location? For each fragile definition there is a counter-argument that disproves its validity. Most people have at least a few words to say on the topic of “racism”, but none can give a concrete definition. Although people try to explain them, “race” and “ethnicity” are indefinable terms that create divisions by the very attempt at a definition.

The denotations of “ethnic” and “race” are as clear as mud. According to the Oxford Dictionary, “ethnic” is defined as “1) having common natural or cultural tradition. 2) denoting origin by birth or descent rather than nationality. 3) relating to race or culture.” The first definition speaks to traditions and culture, but not to exclusivity. Therefore, having a few traditions in common could be enough to be an ethnic group under this partial definition. The second is related to ancestry. At a glance this appears to be a logical definition. However, regardless of whether we got on this planet by intent or chance, there was still a small original population. We all have a common ancestor, so that partial definition doesn't work either. The third definition relates to race. “Race” according to the Oxford Dictionary is “1) each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics. 2) fact of concept of division into races.” Although Oxford defines race as a division within humankind that includes physical characteristics, distinct characteristics like birth defects are not considered a separate racial cue. The second definition is the most revealing, as Oxford uses the word it is defining in the definition. Race is the concept of division into races, but it is not a real or definable word. Is that just a complex way to say that race defines itself because it is conceptual in nature? If the dictionary cannot explain the divisions humankind has labeled as “race” and “ethnicity”, than a closer look at the connotative meanings is necessary.

Often racism is defined as judging someone based on skin color, but even those making the statement often say it is an oversimplification. People cannot be connected in a single such group. In a response to this colorful issue, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) issued a strong statement on race that helps dispel this misconception:

“In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups” (Smedley).

So, although physical appearance is a common part of the perception of race, it is clear that it is an inaccurate definition that inconsistently divides more than it unites. It is true that similar people in appearance may have similar cultural traditions and social patterns, but that is not always the case. When race is a non-existent term, discrimination is easily seen as what Dean Sperry, an associate of Harvard College calls it: “a matter of culture [more than] biology”. If race refers to a culture and not a physical attribute, then it is impossible to identify one’s race based on a picture.

Furthermore, “evidence from the analysis of genetics . . . indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic 'racial' groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes” (Smedley). So-called interracial commonalities are more numerous between races than within them! To claim that racism is based on the color of one's skin is not only incomplete, it is so incomplete it is reproachable. Under this logic, Germans could not be racist against Brits or anyone with a similar skin color. This obvious oversimplification is a common definition, but it lacks substance. Children of one dark-skinned and one light-skinned parent could receive dominant genes from one “white” parent and have no physical appearance of their “black” heritage, but that does not change ancestry. Similarly, Michael Jackson is a light-skinned man, but he is considered a “black” man. Labeling based on color is simply confusing. Skin color is primarily due to varying levels of melanin and is designed to keep ultraviolet rays from burning the skin. Variations in skin color as a whole occur gradually as one approaches or departs from the equator with darker skin being generally located near the equator. However, these variations would be more of a clue to physical location and do not affect the behavior, experiences or attitudes of an individual. A light-skinned person born and raised in Africa would probably have more “African” traits and values than a traditionally labeled “African” born and raised in a light-skinned community.

Thus, a second common criterion used to determine race is national origin or geographic location. This, however, is just as flawed. If Frenchmen have been racist against Brits, then the distance between the two locations can be as little as 50 miles. That is less than the distance between Minneapolis and St. Cloud. Could racism explain the Minnesota/Wisconsin quarrel? When distance is put into this perspective, it appears ludicrous. The distance and location are seemingly irrelevant, except for the social differences that could potentially arise by crossing national borders. However, these social issues are a separate facet of this discussion that are not related to physical location and distance between “races”.

Social issues and Cultural normalcies differ internationally, but actions cannot be used to define race. In Russia, a man shows romantic interest in a lady by peeling her banana. In Chile, a kiss on the cheek is a greeting for men and women. In America, asking someone how they are doing is perceived as a greeting more than a true question. Knowledge of these differences is necessary to appropriately behave in the respective environments, but the actions in themselves do not make one a different race. An American in Germany would need to know that asking a German “how are you?” would elicit a lengthy response, because Germans consider it a legitimate inquiry into a person's life. This difference does not define the races, but they are social aspects of each society. Similarly, if a baby girl from Chile was adopted by an American family, then her actions would define her as American, not Chilean, and upon visiting Chile she could be completely unaware of her ancestor's social normalcies. If the most often cited definitions of race are inconclusive, then one must examine how people draw conclusions about the issue.

Many people make assumptions about the “race” of someone because of unconscious influences. First and foremost, as Americans the issue of race often highlights our national history. A “slave” is defined as a “person who is the legal property of and has to serve another”(“slave”). Note that “race” is a non-existent term in this definition. Furthermore, skin color, ancestry and national origin are irrelevant in the definition of a slave. However, according to a recent Facebook survey in which members of a group titled “What is Race/Ethnicity?” were asked what they thought of after hearing the word 'slavery', most answers referenced early America, the Civil War, or 'African Americans' specifically. A few referenced forced servitude for various reasons. In the past, slavery was a form of servitude one could willingly enter to pay off a debt or for a variety of other reasons regardless of skin color. Once one became a slave, one was completely at the master's disposal. Modern understanding of this term has diverged from its original role, and the connotation of recent history has overshadowed denotation. A second yet powerful influence on the perception of “race” is the media.

Television shows containing a different lifestyle for people with differing skin colors or ancestry, movies depicting false stereotypes, and novels in the cannon addressing this topic all add to the perception that appearance is a valid determination of a person. Canonical novels such as To Kill a Mockingbird, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Wuthering Heights make strong comments about “race”, and the hearty acceptance of these works perpetuates the acceptance that the term is valid. Serious and heart-wrenching movies such as Remember the Titans and Schindler’s List point out the immorality of “racial” judgment along with lighter movies, such as Fried Green Tomatoes and Hairspray. The immoral actions because of “race” are a central conceit in these media and each makes a valid argument. However, while hatred exists between “races,” encouraging the acceptance of “races” is not the best way to address the issue. If races do not exist in a scientific sense, but rather as a term created to divide, then using an ambiguous and divisive term to call for unification is oxymoronic in nature.

Finally, “racism” is not simply a negative judgment based on perceived “race.” Most people cite examples of racism as negative, meaning someone is denied something, injured, or falsely accused based on the color of his or her skin. However, as one respondent to a Facebook group prompt said, “thinking well of one because of race is no less racist than thinking poorly of another because of race. There is something wrong with making judgments, good or bad, based on someone's origins or skin color.” Assuming someone is trustworthy because of his or her skin color is just as flawed as assuming he or she is dishonest. There is even a political mindset, particularly seen in the last election, in which people believe their representative must be a part of the same group (gender, racial or other uncontrollable factors) as themselves. Some women believe a woman would better represent them, and this might be true. Some “Caucasian” Americans believe a “Caucasian” would better represent them, and this is probably not true. A “Caucasian” has the same chances as an “African American.” Because two people share a physical feature does not mean that they have a similar childhood, upbringing, social setting, or set of morals, but stereotypes confuse reality. An uncontrollable physical appearance could make one person bitter, defensive or accusatory, and it could make another sensitive, perceptive to suffering, and protective of those harmed. It has everything to do with the individual and nothing to do with their “race”. Some may argue that racial stereotypes are grounded in some truth and can therefore be cautiously used, but the necessary caution overpowers any concrete conclusions.

This argument is in no way asserting that people are not judged based on the way they look. On the contrary, most people subconsciously form opinions and expectations about people based on their skin color, clothing styles and numerous other physical characteristics. For example, with few exceptions every responder on Facebook admitted to initially judging by appearance while knowing it is wrong to do so. Respondents made statements like “I try, though I may sometimes fail, to judge people exclusively on how they act and not on how they appear”, “I think it's instinct to judge someone immediately based on what you see”, and “my immediate reaction is based on how the people look and act, but I try to ignore those initial opinions until I know more about the person.” These people realize that skin color or perceived race does not affect the true nature of a person, and they consciously try to disregard initial impressions. It is obvious that people have been, and continue to be, discriminated against because of perceived race, and herein lies the problem. Asserting that race does not exist is not contradictory to seeing that “racist” actions exist. Race is a perception of racial differences, and although the word is defining itself, as long as people continue to classify other into “races”, there will be a problem.

Instead of placing people of different cultures and traditions into a biological group, one must advocate the acceptance of all cultures. In discussions about “racism,” one should strive to highlight the commonality of all humankind. As race is indefinable from a literal, biological, physical, social or geographical standpoint, one must acknowledge that it is a label created to divide humanity into groups. These divisions cause more harm than good, and it is clear to see that the understanding of race is based on unconscious sources. Instead of insisting that people ignore the non-existent and divisive term known as “race,”one should strive to “bind all human hearts and minds into a Brotherhood of Man” as J. Pierrepont Finch sings in How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. Work to bring humanity together. Work to appreciate differences in lifestyles, but do not advocate the acceptance of the undefinable “races.”

Works Cited

Anon. “What is Race/Ethnicity?” Online postings. Nov. 20-Dec. 7 2008. Facebook. Dec. 5 2008. <http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1655988&id=585511973#/group.php?gid=51068766419>

http://anthro.palomar.edu. 05 July 2006. 18 Nov. 2008 <http://anthro.palomar.edu/ethnicity/ethnic_2.htm>

http://besthealth.com. 04 Dec. 2008. <http://www.besthealth.com/besthealth/bodyguide/reftext/html/skin_sys_fin.html#color>.

Billikopf, Gregorio. “Cultural Differences? Or, Are We Really That Different?”. cnr.berkely.edu. 04 Dec. 2008.

Cowart, Jeremy. African Man. c.2007. 04 Dec. 2008. <http://www.virb.com/jeremycowart/photos/72194>.

“Ethnic” Def. All. Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus.2^nd American Edition. 2002.

“Race.” Def. 1,2 . Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus.2^nd American Edition. 2002.

Smedley, Audrey. “American Anthropological Association Statement on Race.” aaanet.org. 17 May 1998. 18 Nov. 2008. <http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm>