If everyone in the world were related we would be a dysfunctional family. We would quarrel over our differences and fight over the most trivial things. It seems that we will never see the similarities among one another.
But what if the world’s population knew of the theories postulated by Charles Darwin and the study of evolutionary biology—the idea of a common ancestor and phylogenetics. If you were told you were almost identical to the person sitting next to you on the train or bus, how would you react? Genetically speaking, people are indeed related. Moreover it is impossible to numerate all of our similarities. Our genotypes, which consist of genes present in everyone, prescribe the formula of life (outside of a religious context). It dictates that everyone has two eyes, two ears, one mouth and one heart. We may not express these traits the same way, but we are all still considered human.
My reference to our origin as a species came From Ellis Island.
On a more serious note, Nancy Foner’s use of the word “phenotype”, compelled me to give a synopsis of population genetics. In Chapter 5 The Sting of Prejudice, we examine the role of phenotypes in immigrant “classification.” From the sub-chapter titles we can safely assume that there exists [or rather there existed] a distinction between Jews, Italians, West Indians, Hispanics, and Asians. Foner juxtaposes these distinctions with the word “race” and begins her chapter by clarifying what race really is (It is important to internalize that race is a perceived notion as we analyze Foner’s writing).
In the following pages Foner begins a qualitative analysis [which is not necessarily her own discernment] on immigrant groups, referencing information from The Passing of the Great Race, Edward A. Ross, Jacob Riis, and articles in the New York Times and the Saturday Evening Post.
Notable features of this sub chapter include:
- Original descendants were genetically pure and a biologically superior “Nordic” race (144).
- Phenotypic differences that distinguished the Nordics from other immigrant groups.
- A falling off of good looks with breeding (145).
Through her writing, Foner appears to be drawing attention to the current acceptance of immigrant groups as “white”, “black”, or “other.” She explicitly states that, “…immigrants of European ancestry, whether from Ireland or Poland, England or Russia, Italy or Israel, are fully and unquestionably white” (149). This is the antithesis of our previous notions on what it means to be white, and the discrimination against Jews and Italians (143). Foner also writes on the definition of being “black” (150). There exists little to no distinction among West Indians and African Americans.
In addition to raising awareness on immigrant discrimination, we can conclude that Foner is also describing a loss of immigrant identity or racial identity. From her writing, we observe that the basis of being “white” or “black” is a phenotypic classification. For the most part, it is speculated that Asian Americans will assimilate and become accepted as “white” (162). This poses a problem because of increasing social tensions among “races.” Foner writes, “…a Trinidadian immigrant, was attacked because he was black” (150). This situation exemplifies a worst-case scenario of a civilian being attacked because of his skin color or race.
Although Foner highlights certain incidents, which substantiate her argument, it is imperative to approach the deductions with an open mind (realistically speaking, it may be difficult to discern one immigrant group from the other just by appearance). However, with this in mind, the closing sentence still remains an appropriate summation of her findings, “It is possible, however, that the crucial line will remain between blacks and all others, as black immigrants and their children remain on the black side of the racial divide and experience persistent discrimination well into the future” (168).
_________________________________
This reading invoked many feelings from my previous Arts in NYC blog post.
I am including this because I feel that much of what I write is merely analysis and may not reflect my own feelings toward the issue. Feel free to read it or just stop at the end of this sentence.
“Have you ever experienced an unfathomable heartache? Something unexplainable that tugs at you and renders you vulnerable; the feeling is surreal, and most of us have very little knowledge in the matter. The extent of sympathy and human compassion is hardly concrete as there are different levels of responsiveness towards someone else’s sadness.
Many of us have, including myself, can only vaguely describe this feeling brought on by circumstance. You could be attending someone’s funeral, or to a much lesser extent, reading a bittersweet romance novel, and still feel compelled to cry in both situations. There are certain instances in life that evoke unwarranted feelings of grief from humans that may not necessarily be caused by our own affairs.
…
After we discussed the historical background of the play in class, I went home and reflected on what I had learned.
I thought of people. I thought of our world. I thought of how little appreciation we have for one another. I thought of Black Eyed Peas and their song Where Is The Love? I thought of what it meant to hate, to divide ourselves because of our differences, to kill one another and the result of our actions. I thought about the what ifs.
What if people collectively made an effort to help each other? What if we took action against inequality and suffering? What if there was a way to make life easier on us all?”
In this case, I do feel upset when I think about ongoing discrimination. And I cannot say I have never been called a chink before.
