Most everyone in America agrees that a meritocracy is a good thing. I'm not entirely sure about the history behind that, though I have some guesses. Mostly based on my understanding of history, and how we interpreted various events...
First is that history has shown talent is rarely passed along genetic lines. Or perhaps the conditions leading to developing talent don't, or the talent passed along is for a completely different area, and we force someone with a talent for, say, growing flowers or something into being a ruler. (There were also issues with inbreeding and various medical issues that resulted from that.)
Needless to say, believing that someone will be a great ruler because of their father or mother has been proven wrong repeatedly.
Add to this our particular American history, namely that a lot of people with absolutely no aristocratic blood (as well as second or third sons who had no chance to inherit) came to American and were able to succeed.
That sense of frustration, of being unable to become who you should be? That's part of what drew people to America, where none of that mattered. Or didn't used to.
I think there's a tendency for the people at the top to try to secure their positions, and in the process make it harder for anyone further down to move up... thus leading to an aristocratic class (even if it's not always called that). For whatever reason, human nature or something, they then tend to grow arrogant and believe they deserve their position... by virtue of their aristocratic blood in the past, though that's not the only justification... but they generally fail to realize that there are others with just as much talent (or greater) in the lower classes. And thus fail to realize that there's a ton of frustration as people with talent are blocked from ever doing better.
This is what the French Revolution brought home... because the French Army did amazingly well once it cleared the 'dead weight' of arrogant (and mediocre) aristocrats who though they were the bees knees. Suddenly talented people who used to have absolutely no chance of becoming field marshalls were able to show their stuff.
Imagine how frustrating it is, to know you're more smarter and more capable than the officer you're reporting to, and to also know that it doesn't matter. It never matters. Because they're noble, and you're nothing.
Most of what I said is not, I think, controversial. It's part of why we value being a meritocracy.
And it's also why it's so frustrating that people in power continue to believe we're a meritocracy, even as they solidify their grip on power and make it harder for talent to be recognized and developed in those who aren't born wealthy. Socioeconomic mobility wouldn't be correlated so strongly to parental income. That's why all the articles about rich people buying their way into Ivy League colleges matter. That's why unpaid internships, which are only doable if you have the resources to pay for room and board on your own, matter. That's why companies that only hire from Ivy League colleges, that mostly admit students from privileged backgrounds in the first place, matters. (And that's also why it's a problem that people who come from such backgrounds are hired by others with the same backgrounds, and work only with people like them. Because they all tend to view the world in the Exact. Same. Way. Which means that they don't even know what they're missing, what an alternate viewpoint would have. Like... I don't think having an Ivy League education is a bad thing, at all. But if I were building a team of geniuses, I'd want to make sure I had variety. Some with an Ivy League background, some with a public school background, someone with real world practical experience getting things done... the specifics would depend on what I was building a team to do, ofc, but I'd want to get a good spread of viewpoints on the team. Otherwise... well, what's the point of having five people with the same background if they all see things the same way and have the same opinion on a subject? Might as well just make it one... )
But whether or not we're still a meritocracy and what to do about that... well, go ahead and do your own research. I wanted to address something else here.
The Romans lived in constant fear of slave revolts, and from what I understand the South did, as well. Slavery is a system that by it's very nature prevents people from living up to their full potential. Consider what it would be like if Maya Angelou was never taught how to read and write, if Serena Williams was never given the chance to play tennis.
Imagine the level of frustration you would feel, if the world constantly sent the message that all you were good for was flipping burgers.
Consider that people tend to live up (or down) to expectations, like the students who blossomed during a Harvard experiment. That if you give people the right tools, set them up for success, more of them will make it than you'd think.
White supremacists would essentially force a large portion of our population to live with that constant sense of frustration, that constant inability to live up to their full potential.
Aside from the immorality of it (and I think there's plenty of that), the white people who are supposed to benefit from it won't, because under such a system they will NEVER be safe or secure.
Such a system would require a constant boot on the neck of anyone not white, because if there's one thing we've seen throughout history it's that we all, all human beings, resent being shut out like that. Such a system may successfully cow most of the people, most of the time, but there will always be dissent, and at some point that boot will lift, and then we'll be right back to dealing with all the crap we're dealing with right now.
I would, quite frankly, rather patch this vulnerability here and now instead of spend an unknown number of years making people miserable just to wind up right back where we are.
Like, seriously? We need to find a win/win, a system that lets everyone reach their full potential, and anything less than that is just plain stupid. White supremacy is stupid. (Which is probably why it's more about emotion than logic, I guess.)
On a related note...
Have you ever had one of those moments, generally a sort of quiet stillness, where you're forced to realize you're not really happy with where you are? Maybe it's your toxic work environment, maybe it's your significant other. You realize that you tend to push the thought to the back of your mind as you deal with all the day-to-day stuff... doing your job, or spending time with your SO, or whatever... but in those quiet moments where you get the chance to sit back and reflect, you realize that something is off. And even though doing something about it will be hard (quitting your job is scary, and there's a comfort in sticking with what you know. Same with breaking up with someone... because who knows when you'll find someone else, and whether they'll be any better).
And maybe your brain is telling you that you ought to do the sensible thing. Ought to keep your current job. Ought to stick with your significant other. Whatever. But after more thought, and reflection, you come to realize this is something you have to do.
That sort of thought process is generally what I think is a sign we're in touch with that inner self, or higher power, or whatever you want to call it. It's that quiet voice that speaks to us in stillness, challenges us to make decisions that aren't always logical and safe, but that ultimately lead us to be our more authentic selves. Lead us to be live more fully, more true to who we are.
I won't criticize people for making the 'safe' choice, because it's scary as heck to do otherwise. Especially if you're thinking about leaving your job when you've got a family to take care of... though sometimes life has a way of forcing you out of that comfort zone anyway. That job you despise, the one your thinking about leaving... they may not think you're what they want and may wind up firing you later (and maybe not.)
I brought that up because, as far as I can tell, most homosexual and transsexual people have had a similar thought process. There might be some places where you can publicly say you're a homosexual or transsexual, and not feel as though you're taking a huge risk. Maybe. But by and large, that's not the case. They may lose their job (like a friend in ROTC, who got kicked out of the army when he came out... back before they changed that policy.) They may get killed, like many transsexuals are, especially when they decide it's time to tell a potential significant other.
And so, on the one hand, there are people who have done a lot of soul searching, who know that there are a lot of real risks and consequences to publicly stating their preferences, who know they'd be safer and more secure if they could just pretend to be 'normal', and who somehow still feel like this is something they have to do. Homosexual, transexual, asexual, pansexual, whatever-the-heck else there is... I don't always understand it, personally. I've never wanted to be any other gender than the one I am. But I don't need to, because I would never presume to know what someone wants or needs better than they do themselves. And I can recognize that these identities describe something they've thought long and hard about, and that they feel more authentic, more like who they are supposed to be, when they acknowledge this aspect of their identity.
On the other hand, we have people who claim to be speaking on behalf of God... which is quite a presumption in the first place... and yet, so far as I can tell, speak with the voice of hatred and fear.
I think it's fairly obvious which voice sounds more genuine to me.
The thing about being raised Catholic is this - the Protestant movement forced this little thing called the Reformation, and the Catholic church had to adapt to what the people wanted. In one of my grade schools a priest tried explaining that dynamic, that it's not a one-way relationship. The institution itself, the priests and nuns and whatnot, are human and can make mistakes.
Anyways, this is one of the things I think they deserve push back for, and maybe eventually they'll be another little reformation.
First is that history has shown talent is rarely passed along genetic lines. Or perhaps the conditions leading to developing talent don't, or the talent passed along is for a completely different area, and we force someone with a talent for, say, growing flowers or something into being a ruler. (There were also issues with inbreeding and various medical issues that resulted from that.)
Needless to say, believing that someone will be a great ruler because of their father or mother has been proven wrong repeatedly.
Add to this our particular American history, namely that a lot of people with absolutely no aristocratic blood (as well as second or third sons who had no chance to inherit) came to American and were able to succeed.
That sense of frustration, of being unable to become who you should be? That's part of what drew people to America, where none of that mattered. Or didn't used to.
I think there's a tendency for the people at the top to try to secure their positions, and in the process make it harder for anyone further down to move up... thus leading to an aristocratic class (even if it's not always called that). For whatever reason, human nature or something, they then tend to grow arrogant and believe they deserve their position... by virtue of their aristocratic blood in the past, though that's not the only justification... but they generally fail to realize that there are others with just as much talent (or greater) in the lower classes. And thus fail to realize that there's a ton of frustration as people with talent are blocked from ever doing better.
This is what the French Revolution brought home... because the French Army did amazingly well once it cleared the 'dead weight' of arrogant (and mediocre) aristocrats who though they were the bees knees. Suddenly talented people who used to have absolutely no chance of becoming field marshalls were able to show their stuff.
Imagine how frustrating it is, to know you're more smarter and more capable than the officer you're reporting to, and to also know that it doesn't matter. It never matters. Because they're noble, and you're nothing.
Most of what I said is not, I think, controversial. It's part of why we value being a meritocracy.
And it's also why it's so frustrating that people in power continue to believe we're a meritocracy, even as they solidify their grip on power and make it harder for talent to be recognized and developed in those who aren't born wealthy. Socioeconomic mobility wouldn't be correlated so strongly to parental income. That's why all the articles about rich people buying their way into Ivy League colleges matter. That's why unpaid internships, which are only doable if you have the resources to pay for room and board on your own, matter. That's why companies that only hire from Ivy League colleges, that mostly admit students from privileged backgrounds in the first place, matters. (And that's also why it's a problem that people who come from such backgrounds are hired by others with the same backgrounds, and work only with people like them. Because they all tend to view the world in the Exact. Same. Way. Which means that they don't even know what they're missing, what an alternate viewpoint would have. Like... I don't think having an Ivy League education is a bad thing, at all. But if I were building a team of geniuses, I'd want to make sure I had variety. Some with an Ivy League background, some with a public school background, someone with real world practical experience getting things done... the specifics would depend on what I was building a team to do, ofc, but I'd want to get a good spread of viewpoints on the team. Otherwise... well, what's the point of having five people with the same background if they all see things the same way and have the same opinion on a subject? Might as well just make it one... )
But whether or not we're still a meritocracy and what to do about that... well, go ahead and do your own research. I wanted to address something else here.
The Romans lived in constant fear of slave revolts, and from what I understand the South did, as well. Slavery is a system that by it's very nature prevents people from living up to their full potential. Consider what it would be like if Maya Angelou was never taught how to read and write, if Serena Williams was never given the chance to play tennis.
Imagine the level of frustration you would feel, if the world constantly sent the message that all you were good for was flipping burgers.
Consider that people tend to live up (or down) to expectations, like the students who blossomed during a Harvard experiment. That if you give people the right tools, set them up for success, more of them will make it than you'd think.
White supremacists would essentially force a large portion of our population to live with that constant sense of frustration, that constant inability to live up to their full potential.
Aside from the immorality of it (and I think there's plenty of that), the white people who are supposed to benefit from it won't, because under such a system they will NEVER be safe or secure.
Such a system would require a constant boot on the neck of anyone not white, because if there's one thing we've seen throughout history it's that we all, all human beings, resent being shut out like that. Such a system may successfully cow most of the people, most of the time, but there will always be dissent, and at some point that boot will lift, and then we'll be right back to dealing with all the crap we're dealing with right now.
I would, quite frankly, rather patch this vulnerability here and now instead of spend an unknown number of years making people miserable just to wind up right back where we are.
Like, seriously? We need to find a win/win, a system that lets everyone reach their full potential, and anything less than that is just plain stupid. White supremacy is stupid. (Which is probably why it's more about emotion than logic, I guess.)
On a related note...
Have you ever had one of those moments, generally a sort of quiet stillness, where you're forced to realize you're not really happy with where you are? Maybe it's your toxic work environment, maybe it's your significant other. You realize that you tend to push the thought to the back of your mind as you deal with all the day-to-day stuff... doing your job, or spending time with your SO, or whatever... but in those quiet moments where you get the chance to sit back and reflect, you realize that something is off. And even though doing something about it will be hard (quitting your job is scary, and there's a comfort in sticking with what you know. Same with breaking up with someone... because who knows when you'll find someone else, and whether they'll be any better).
And maybe your brain is telling you that you ought to do the sensible thing. Ought to keep your current job. Ought to stick with your significant other. Whatever. But after more thought, and reflection, you come to realize this is something you have to do.
That sort of thought process is generally what I think is a sign we're in touch with that inner self, or higher power, or whatever you want to call it. It's that quiet voice that speaks to us in stillness, challenges us to make decisions that aren't always logical and safe, but that ultimately lead us to be our more authentic selves. Lead us to be live more fully, more true to who we are.
I won't criticize people for making the 'safe' choice, because it's scary as heck to do otherwise. Especially if you're thinking about leaving your job when you've got a family to take care of... though sometimes life has a way of forcing you out of that comfort zone anyway. That job you despise, the one your thinking about leaving... they may not think you're what they want and may wind up firing you later (and maybe not.)
I brought that up because, as far as I can tell, most homosexual and transsexual people have had a similar thought process. There might be some places where you can publicly say you're a homosexual or transsexual, and not feel as though you're taking a huge risk. Maybe. But by and large, that's not the case. They may lose their job (like a friend in ROTC, who got kicked out of the army when he came out... back before they changed that policy.) They may get killed, like many transsexuals are, especially when they decide it's time to tell a potential significant other.
And so, on the one hand, there are people who have done a lot of soul searching, who know that there are a lot of real risks and consequences to publicly stating their preferences, who know they'd be safer and more secure if they could just pretend to be 'normal', and who somehow still feel like this is something they have to do. Homosexual, transexual, asexual, pansexual, whatever-the-heck else there is... I don't always understand it, personally. I've never wanted to be any other gender than the one I am. But I don't need to, because I would never presume to know what someone wants or needs better than they do themselves. And I can recognize that these identities describe something they've thought long and hard about, and that they feel more authentic, more like who they are supposed to be, when they acknowledge this aspect of their identity.
On the other hand, we have people who claim to be speaking on behalf of God... which is quite a presumption in the first place... and yet, so far as I can tell, speak with the voice of hatred and fear.
I think it's fairly obvious which voice sounds more genuine to me.
The thing about being raised Catholic is this - the Protestant movement forced this little thing called the Reformation, and the Catholic church had to adapt to what the people wanted. In one of my grade schools a priest tried explaining that dynamic, that it's not a one-way relationship. The institution itself, the priests and nuns and whatnot, are human and can make mistakes.
Anyways, this is one of the things I think they deserve push back for, and maybe eventually they'll be another little reformation.
No comments:
Post a Comment