Clash of Civilizations vs. Clash of Ignorance

Hi guys! Today, my friend Fatima Hooda will be guest posting on my blog. Check out her blog about happiness. Enjoy!

"One of the most intriguing aspects of human interaction is the existence of diversity.

The existence of diversity is what makes my existence worthwhile and fun-filled, giving me a chance to grow myself. Diversity of everyday life, of perspective, of thought, of tradition, of language, of clothes, of EVERYTHING is what makes life interesting and colorful. If you’re lookin’ for the cheesy metaphor, then here it is: Diversity in life is the tye-dye colors on an otherwise white t-shirt. (Okay, laugh. Just a little. Fine. At least Smile? Okay, maybe not.)

The point is Diversity is strength and color of life. However, it’s a little disturbing to me when others can’t see it this way. In fact, Diversity is looked upon as a potential roadblock. I’m especially concerned with the Samuel P. Huntington’s theory of problems that arise due to “The clash of civilizations.”

Huntington’s main points are summarized in the following quote from his book, The Clash of Civilizations: “It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.”

I get where Huntington’s coming from. I definitely see the potential problems that may arise when two different people meet, but it doesn’t mean that the problem is that they are from two different backgrounds. The problem is misunderstanding that may be fostered from two different cultures. It’s not the Clash of Culture that’s causing a problem, it’s more the Clash of Ignorance as pointed out by many prominent figures like His Highness Aga Khan IV and elaborated on this blog.

So why does it matter if we call it clash of civilization or clash of ignorance? While arguing those two aren’t the same thing leaves room for much argument, a concrete reason for the distinction is the solution that would follow. If we call our problems a clash of civilizations, then what’s the solution? What do you do about the mere fact that two people are different? Try to force the other one to be more like the other one, or the financially richer of the two?  NO, that is not the answer to solving the problem. The eradication of diversity makes our world less colorful, less natural, and bland...something we definitely don't want to loose.

However, there is a plausible solution to a Clash of Ignorance. Ignorance and Misunderstandings can be eradicated through education of other cultures, languages, thought, tradition and perspective. Granted, it may not be easy-but it does allow for growth, working together, and making life even more colorful than it was.

No matter what the difference may be-difference in thought, difference in religion, difference in tradition- our differences shouldn’t be a reason of conflict, we should strive to make it a pillar of strength."

The very earliest of racial profiling

You probably recognize those little postcards you get from the government asking you to fill out some survey questions about your race, income, age, etc. You fill out those little cards and then send them on their way. Now, imagine yourself living in 1940, when census enumerators would come to your house instead and ask you those questions.

And, prior to 1940, that's exactly what they did. So, instead of conducting survey's via mail-in cards, the government actually sent representatives to go door-to-door and conduct the surveys.

You might think that information collected by enumerators would be just the same as if it were collected by postcard, as it was after the 1970's. However, statistics show there's a big difference between these two collection methods. In one, the enumerators guessed on your nationality, based on their training and instructions. However, on the mail-in surveys, people were asked to self-identify which race they belonged to. The discrepancies between the two methods of identification were striking.

One of the biggest changes was that the the Native American population went up 110%. Secondly, nearly 80% of Puerto Ricans identified themselves as white, as compared to the enumerator-method where only 40% of Puerto Ricans were classified as white.

As Lisa Wade puts it, "Switching from enumerators to surveys meant literally shifting our definition of what race is from a matter of appearance to a matter of identity...The very demographics of the population underwent a fundamental unsettling because of the logistical difficulties in collecting information from a large number of people. Nevertheless, this change would have a profound impact on who we think Americans are, what research about race finds, and how we think about race today"

So readers, how do you think of race? Do you think the way you define yourself and your race is different than how someone else might see you? How so?

A Return to the Civil Rights Movement?

The scenario has been heard before; a suspicious murder, unclear evidence, a victim, and an accused. However, what makes this case unusual is its connection to civil rights.

Early this February, in a central Florida town, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Reportedly, Zimmerman had been following Martin for ‘suspicious’ behavior and as Martin returned from inside a convenient store, the two got into an altercation outside. Zimmerman says he was attacked and claimed self-defense; Martin’s family refutes his claims.

Besides rising fame due to discrepancies in the case and new evidence, the case has risen in the civil rights realm, and has activists using Martin’s case to bring up the role of race in the initial incident. The Pendulum said, “Civil rights groups are now swarming upon this incident, using Martin as a martyr to gain the attention of the continuing profiling of minorities in the country.”

Outcry began after police investigators decided not to charge Zimmerman on the base of self-defense. Rumors circulated that because Martin was African-American and Zimmerman, Caucasian, the decision of the investigators to release Zimmerman was bias. Responding to how race might have played a role in Zimmerman’s release, Velma Williams, a member of Martin’s neighborhood and a member of the black community, said, “People were getting suspicious, saying we knew that was going to happen based on history”.

About a week after the shooting, race riots spurted not only in Sanford, Florida, but in other cities like New York and Washington DC, where the case now resides.

What do you think readers, is Martin’s name being used in vain by civil right protestors? What are your thoughts on racial profiling in the US?