Love And Peace, Family and Friends.
Over a century ago, there is a legendary
civic leader whose status rivals that of Martin Luther King Jr in the United
States. His name is Booker Taliafero
Washington, and he rises from the chains of slavery to build a university,
establish a “development” machine (before the term is invented), and advocate
for the interests of people of African descent.
Within his famous Atlanta Compromise, Washington offers a metaphor for
suggested ethnic integration within the United States: for different ethnicities to be as separate
as the fingers when it comes to social interaction, and as united as the hand
when it comes to common economic development.
Whilst this policy has its valid detractors
(including the renowned WEB Du Bois who is a founder of America’s most
prominent civil rights organisation, NAACP), this policy provides an
appropriate context to consider the interests of multiethnic people.
Within the past 20 years, a social movement
develops, advocating the identity, experience, and interests of people whose
heritage comprises multiple ethnicities.
Mixed. Mixed Race. Biracial.
Multiethnic. Mixie. We are becoming increasingly fortified in
affirming our multiethnic identity and building systems, institutions, and
communities that strengthen our multiethnic identity and experience.
However, this affirmation of multiethnic
identity and experience is met with substantial disdain from respective “monoethnic”
communities. Some monoethnic communities
scrutinise the necessity and legitimacy of such multiethnic identity and
experience in lieu of a conventional practise of assimilating within a
mainstream identity and culture. And
additional monoethnic communities look towards the affirmation of multiethnic
identity and experience with suspicion and animosity, concerned with such
affirmation detracting from conventional programmes and initiatives that are
respectively dedicated for the respective preservation of these monoethnic
communities. However, both of these
approaches exist within an antiquated and stagnant myopia that historically
pits different monoethnic communities against each other, causing a
considerable reduction in aggregate production and efficiency, thereby
substantially limiting the wellbeing and prosperity experienced by each
monoethnic community.
When any community engages in conflict
against another community, the devastation is obvious. Lives are lost. Wisdom and skilled labour is lost. Infrastructure is damaged. Systems and institutions are distracted from
visionary endeavours and discovery. And
innumerous opportunity costs for natural resources, education, productivity,
development, and progression are lost.
Whilst the effects may be less severe and
readily evident, the same opportunity costs are lost when monoethnic
communities are unable to proficiently cooperate with each other. When this happens, there is convolution,
over-complexity, and waste in public policy.
There is dissonance and stagnancy within employment rates, labour
productivity, and capital development.
There is tremendous inefficiency within housing development and
migration, transportation practices, and community building. There is an increased amount of poverty,
vagrancy, malaise, despondency, and disconnect.
There is an increased amount of dehumanisation, civil transgressions,
and criminal behaviour. There is an
excessive amount of resources invested in weapons, fences, security, and police
forces. There is misinformation,
miscommunication, and mistrust regarding education, which leads to aggravated
circumstances within each of the previously described, and additional,
experiences.
It may be considered that these adverse
experiences occur whenever 1 person or 1 community is disinterested in the
wellbeing of another person or another community; whenever 1 person or 1 community alienates or
dehumanises another person or another community; whenever 1 person or 1 community justifies
transgressive behaviour against another person or another community. And when 1 monoethnic community intentionally
or innately disassociates with another monoethnic community, this process of
disinterest, dehumanisation, and devastation intentionally or innately begins.
So the question emerges: how can different monoethnic communities
successfully cooperate and prosper with each other whilst also maintaining the
respective, distinct cultures and traditions of these monoethnic
communities? Within multiethnic people,
there is a solution.
Multiethnic people may actually be the
antithesis to Washington’s separation of the fingers: blurring the boundaries of ethnicity, as well
as the boundaries of cultures and traditions.
But within multiethnic people there is also the ancient solution for the
progression and adaptation of civilisations, cultures, and traditions. Whilst multiethnic people maintain multiple
allegiances and a confluence of cultures and traditions, multiethnic people
also have respect for the legacy and integrity for each of 1’s cultures and
traditions; even whilst merging cultures
and traditions and creating new 1’s.
Multiethnic people recognise and
concentrate upon higher principles and practices to which all monoethnic communities
adhere. And through this recognition and
concentration, opportunities for institutional and systemic cooperation amongst
different monoethnic communities become increasingly evident and plausible.
The cost for these opportunities is the
allowance for multiethnic people to also continue and flourish; for multiethnic people to be accepted within
each monoethnic community whilst also simultaneously being respected when
following the culture and tradition of another monoethnic community as well as when
following a new “hybrid” culture and tradition.
Admittedly, this allowance may effectively detract from the aggregate of
each monoethnic community, but this cost is much less than the cost for outright
conflict and dissonance with other monoethnic communities. In this scenario, the monoethnic communities
are still as separate as the fingers (with the integrity and the progression of
each respective monoethnic culture and tradition), whilst multiethnic people
exist as the joints (the knuckles) that bridge the fingers into the hands and
facilitate cooperation between the different monoethnic communities. A hand can accomplish an increasing amount
compared to any 1 finger or thumb.
This can take the form of multiethnic
people being hired as ambassadors between different monoethnic
communities: in labour
negotiations; market and demographic
consulting; interreligious diplomacy; alternative dispute resolution and
arbitration; city planning and community
building; public policy; education;
and additionally. It is also
beneficial to make provisions for multiethnic people to intentionally and
innately build institutions, systems, and communities where multiethnic
identity and experience are the pervading norm (the predominant culture and
tradition) of such institutions, systems, and communities.
We each exist within our own myopia. And when we have the courage to accept this,
we are increasingly understanding and empathetic with the respective myopiae of
others. We are also better equipped to
perceive the entirety of the Universe and the threats and opportunities that
exist therein. May we be further
courageous to strengthen the bridges that we build with those who are different
from us whilst we continue to remain ourselves.
We are better together.
Love And Peace,
Peter.
No comments:
Post a Comment