There are always values (things people want to experience) at stake when humans get into conflict, whether in theory (such as a debate or discussion) or in practice (such as a fight or war).
The values at stake in the Black Man-White Woman conflict, for me, are the following:
1. Kinaesthesia (of the man) or physical intelligence
2. Passive sensory impact (the impact of the man’s physical attributes over which he has little or limited control, on me)
3. Cultural compatibility (of the man with me, such as his use of books, deodorant, filing systems, underwear, newspapers, internet, in daily life)
It is clear to me that no matter what people may say or feel about the nature of dating or mating, the relative importance placed on values associated with them (dating and mating), such as the three I stated above, are the things that will keep the couple together, or eventually break them apart.
It is definitely hurtful to a young Black woman with those three values high on her list, who has been raised on not only Cinderella and Snow White, but just about all the other love stories you can think of, to think that she won’t get a Black Man. It is profoundly hurtful.
My problem with those who say that this hurt is unnecessary is not that they cannot conceptualize it; that they cannot help. What I resent is that they villainize the woman who feels it. They say that she is foolish to be disappointed by so little, that to prioritize a man’s dancing ability, among other things, is unreasonable; they say that to put premium on a good-looking man with “jock” athletic qualities is shallow.
For your information, O ignorant ones, a girl who wants a man with dance (which incidentally requires both spatial and emotional intelligence) or other physical ability, and who is easy on her eyes is not a weirdo, psycho, or shallow to look for a mate who is likely to be able to physically and intelligently protect her and her offspring, and who can pass on good genes (i.e. genes for increased desirability to future suitors or partners) to that offspring. She is looking for exactly what she should, for the survival of the fittest.
Her naysayers never bother to wonder what could happen to the human race if it did not breed according to the best genes and physical strengths possible, especially when technology is a baby compared with Mother Nature in terms of years existing, and at any time may die in her arms, given the dangerous power-lust and madness world leaders have displayed throughout history, and continue to display, as Michael Moore of Farenheit 9/11 and other films has shown.
That being said, it is definitely and profoundly frightening to a young woman who:
1) identifies with the ethnic label “Black”
2) has those three values high on her list
to be consistently bombarded with images of Black Alpha-males with non-Black females.
The first characteristic is her problem. She should, in theory, identify as human first, and Black afterwards, if at all. When she doesn’t, she unnecessarily limits her potential mates into in-groups and out-groups.
The second characteristic is a real, human, raceless problem: the problem of acquiring a sexual/familial experience satisfying to herself. As you know humans have two main operating systems: nature and nurture. Nature is what programs us to choose mates with more symmetry and other fertility symbols: nature is concerned with straight reproduction of the biological fittest. Nurture is what programs us to choose mates who prefer the same things we do; reproduction of the perceived cultural fittest.
A man who is more physically skilful is (generally) more likely to be observant about physical capacities, including hers, for sexual pleasure, and enemies’, for self-defense during a fight. Therefore this is the type of man who may be best able to fulfil her two Nature-driven needs.
Now, when it comes to culture, it’s just a sad fact of life that a Black Man generally tends to inherit what is comparatively (to other ethnicities) the highest degree of kinaesthesia through his cultural background, as well as other sensually appealing traits such as taking pride in dress (“pimpin’” or “cuttin’ it” or “lookin’ cris’”), signature cologne, and athletic ability. And the cultural agenda backs the biological agenda greatly in this case. That’s all.
In a world full of assholes, deadbeats, and players, or perverse combinations of the above, some of us women feel that if you at least get a good gene donor or a good dancer, you’re 1/3 of the way in the genetic/evolutionary ‘black’ rather than ‘red’. That’s why it hurts when you don’t even think you’re going to get your 1/3, because a White woman always has the one you see who has access to it.
The problem is our biology and our socialization, which tells us we are nothing unless we have a spouse and children. We have to learn the meaning of a life beyond biological programming and cultural socialization for reproduction. We have to learn to give ourselves meaning in spite of childlessness or singlehood. If we can do that, then our prospects for happiness won't seem quite so limited.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Open Letter to President G.M.R.
Dear Mr. President,
You are a very articulate man. I wish to be so here. I submit that it is not true in all cases that "to err is not to act disreputably".
To err is to make a mistake. It is a mistake for students to disrespect each other and their teachers, or to waste time fighting rather than learning; for a cook to use salt where he should use sugar; for a surgeon to remember a joke or nightmare suddenly and, hand jerking, to cut the carotid artery of his patient; for a nurse to administer the wrong medicine having taken up the wrong bottle; for a teenage girl to willfully engage in activity that makes her pregnant when she has no means whatsoever of supporting herself, except the means that prostitutes may have.
It is surely a mistake for a person to drive drunk only because they forgot to call a designated driver, and because they also forgot that they had not called such a driver. Forgetting is a very human trait, but in the eyes of the law, this act, which stemmed from a very human error, is a disreputable act, the act of a criminal. All these acts are the results of normal mistakes in thinking, judgment, and remembering. But they are not 'reputable' either; they are irresponsible: they cost a great deal. Not only in life-and-death terms but in life-and-life terms- the difference between just existing, as many animals do, and living, as befits the dignity true humanity deserves.
You see, unpunished errors are destructive to the fabric of society and civilization directly (as in murder) or indirectly (as in plagiarism). They prevent honorable citizens from living with the dignity of knowing they are protected by a reliable social code of ethics, to which all citizens, regardless of position, must adhere, and they encourage those less honorable to risk profiting from dishonourable behaviour. Thus, errors are very expensive; like anything creating debt, they should be paid for or strenuously discouraged—by a privation of some kind, like an interest rate, whether self-imposed or society imposed—to discourage their being repeated.
I agree that a mistake-maker's/wrongdoer's intentions must be considered when deciding what should be done about their errors. I acknowledge that Trinidad and Tobago's society regularly and carelessly uses the pressure of rumour and mauvais langue to blackmail public figures and others into submission to its apparent desires. But the kind of thinking that states that it is an axiom of human behaviour that "to err is not to act disreputably", in my view, is what encourages so many errors to be made daily, errors against which every effort should have been made to ensure their non-occurrence. The laxness and leniency towards errors is devastatingly destroying our people and nation.
I hope you see why for me, you have not cleared the air. I don't think you should resign for the reasons the media seems to list. I think you should resign because you seem to believe something that no civilized bank or country could and successfully run its affairs: that the only account required for errors of the kind you made is encapsulated in the tired cliché: "To err is human, to forgive is divine."
You are a very articulate man. I wish to be so here. I submit that it is not true in all cases that "to err is not to act disreputably".
To err is to make a mistake. It is a mistake for students to disrespect each other and their teachers, or to waste time fighting rather than learning; for a cook to use salt where he should use sugar; for a surgeon to remember a joke or nightmare suddenly and, hand jerking, to cut the carotid artery of his patient; for a nurse to administer the wrong medicine having taken up the wrong bottle; for a teenage girl to willfully engage in activity that makes her pregnant when she has no means whatsoever of supporting herself, except the means that prostitutes may have.
It is surely a mistake for a person to drive drunk only because they forgot to call a designated driver, and because they also forgot that they had not called such a driver. Forgetting is a very human trait, but in the eyes of the law, this act, which stemmed from a very human error, is a disreputable act, the act of a criminal. All these acts are the results of normal mistakes in thinking, judgment, and remembering. But they are not 'reputable' either; they are irresponsible: they cost a great deal. Not only in life-and-death terms but in life-and-life terms- the difference between just existing, as many animals do, and living, as befits the dignity true humanity deserves.
You see, unpunished errors are destructive to the fabric of society and civilization directly (as in murder) or indirectly (as in plagiarism). They prevent honorable citizens from living with the dignity of knowing they are protected by a reliable social code of ethics, to which all citizens, regardless of position, must adhere, and they encourage those less honorable to risk profiting from dishonourable behaviour. Thus, errors are very expensive; like anything creating debt, they should be paid for or strenuously discouraged—by a privation of some kind, like an interest rate, whether self-imposed or society imposed—to discourage their being repeated.
I agree that a mistake-maker's/wrongdoer's intentions must be considered when deciding what should be done about their errors. I acknowledge that Trinidad and Tobago's society regularly and carelessly uses the pressure of rumour and mauvais langue to blackmail public figures and others into submission to its apparent desires. But the kind of thinking that states that it is an axiom of human behaviour that "to err is not to act disreputably", in my view, is what encourages so many errors to be made daily, errors against which every effort should have been made to ensure their non-occurrence. The laxness and leniency towards errors is devastatingly destroying our people and nation.
I hope you see why for me, you have not cleared the air. I don't think you should resign for the reasons the media seems to list. I think you should resign because you seem to believe something that no civilized bank or country could and successfully run its affairs: that the only account required for errors of the kind you made is encapsulated in the tired cliché: "To err is human, to forgive is divine."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
