Race Matters— Sort of. But Should It? (Part 1)
“I am not racist, but …” Do you love talks that start out like that? Almost always it goes into uncomfortable places pretty quick. Often to say one is not a racist is either a ploy to try to get people to listen. Perhaps more often it is something like, “I like to envision myself as NOT being racist and am blind to the implications of many of my beliefs I have not deeply reflected on.” I can’t pretend not to be racist… and perhaps one of the surest evidences I have for being racist was my decades-long lack of interest in race. While some would describe this as “color-blind” it also can be a backdoor to supporting racism and other forms of bigotry. Years ago, I wrote a textbook of sorts for my students at seminary on Cultural Anthropology. In it, my shortest chapter was on Race. My main two reasons for this were (1) Race doesn’t really exist, and (2) Race should not matter. Of course, the second point flows from the first.
Throughout history, however, it seems as if Race does matter, so perhaps it does exist. The problem is that no one has really comes up with a universally accepted list of races. Consider the case of Colonial Philippines. There were several groups that could be identified as Racial Groups (or perhaps Ethnic Identities) during the Spanish era:
-Blancos (“Whites” or of European descent)
-Indios (Full-blooded ancestry from the Philippines, Malayo-Polynesian in looks, and Christian)
-Sanglay (Full-blooded Chinese)
-Negrito (dark-skinned tribal peoples in the Philippines, such as the Aytas)
-Igorot (Animists from the Cordilleran region of the Philippines)
-Moros (Muslims from Southern Philippines)
-Mestizos (Mixed race peoples)
While race is often seen as a genetic thing by some, or at least by appearance, only two groups above are identified fully in this way (Blancos and Negritos). The others are at least in part defined by culture, country of origin, or religion). The groups were defined by the Spanish based on their values and how they wanted to legally segregate people. Blancos had the most privileges. Mestizos were below the Blancos but still above the other groups. Sanglay were ghettoized. Moros and Igorots were lower than Indios since they were not Christian. As you might guess, Mestizos kind of mess up the system. And that sort of messing of things is part of the reason, I suppose for historical laws against miscegenation (marrying and procreating across racial boundaries) in many cultures. I was married in a state that 30 years earlier would not have allowed it due to anti-miscegenation laws.
In the US, many states had laws based on race. However, due to the large numbers of people who don’t fit into neat little categories of race, many states simply divided between Whites and Coloreds. This could get pretty weird at times. My father-in-law was Filipino but he was considered to be non-Colored in the Southern US, while his brother (not step brother or adopted brother) was deemed Colored and so was treated worse… legally.
Just looking at the previous two paragraphs, one can identify a few things.
Race tends to be tied to (a) superficial physical characteristics, (b) ancestral homeland, (c) religion, and (d) cultural grouping. The determination of what people should be grouped together is likely to vary wildly depending on the perceived “needs” of a particular society. For example, in the United States, it has been considered important to identify those who are of “black” African ancestry, but not so much for those considered “black” from other parts of the world (such as the Aytas of the Philippines, or people from Melanesia). In the Philippines, it was traditionally exactly the opposite. It was seen important to identify Aytas (“Negritos”) while not so much to identify people from Africa.
We would then say that Race is “Socially Constructed.” It is NOT genetic. It is NOT “real,” at least in ways most people would consider real. It is interesting that in the US there seems to be a move against those who believe that race is a social construction, in favor of those who believe it is genetic. And people have made it a bit of a political thing. But it is not really a political thing. Race has ALWAYS been a contextual taxonomy for political or social purposes. If that is unpopular with one segment of society— fine. But that won’t change anything.
I know people tried. When I was young, in church, I was taught that there were three races— “White,” “Black” and “Asian” (or brown or Semitic or whatever was the preferred term). Whites were linked to Noah’s son Japheth, Blacks to Noah’s son Ham, and everybody else it seems to Noah’s son Shem. This sort of genetic view was a bit racist but also a bit progressive. It was racist partly since it seemed to justify mistreating blacks (Ham, the father of the blacks supposedly, was the “bad” son of Noah). On the other hand, in the early centuries of Catholic and Protestant Missions, there were always those who wondered if some races were sub-human (not children of Adam). In scientific circles in the late 1800s and early 1900s, biological evolution gave justification for racism by suggesting the possibility that some people were genetically advanced/superior while others were genetically primitive/inferior. So I suppose being taught that all people descended from the sons of Noah wasn’t such a bad thing compared to some other options. Of course, within a couple chapters of the Flood narrative in Genesis, the three-part division of races appears to be upended in the story of the Tower of Babel, where the dissemination of people throughout the world was driven by language rather than family ancestry.
The late 1800s grew what was called Race Science that sought to categorize races in a way that is… well… scientific. These efforts were, most would agree, pretty much a failure. variations in appearance tend to fit not only into a spectrum (as opposed to clearly delineated categories) but a series of not-always-related spectra. In the early 1900s people were classed into five groups—- Black, White, Red, Yellow, Brown. Another list did not have “Brown” but add “Dusky” and “Orange”(!). Of course, it is not hard to see issues with these classifications as well. For the most part, they claim to be based on skin-town, but really are on region of ancestral origin (mostly). What really separates, for example, Red, Yellow, and Brown? In the other system, Black versus Orange appears to be based on region rather than skintone. In the US this was compounded even more since these groups were not very useful for meeting the “othering” needs of Americans. Often religion and language would be worked into the process as well.
Bringing it together– Race is a Social Construct, driven by a Social Purpose— to define Them versus Us.
But what should we as Christians do in terms of race? St. Paul makes it clear that race has no real role in the Kingdom of God. John idealizes unity with diversity where people of every tribe, nation, and tongue join together in common purpose as equals before the throne of God. Aristides speaks of different races. He categorized all Christians as being “of the same race.” Of course, one could respond, correctly that race as a concept was handled differently back 2000 years ago. That being said— the function was still the same… to identify who is “Us” and who is “Them.”
Does this mean that the church is to be “color-blind”? As a member of a multi-racial family, I generally desire for the the answer to be “Yes”— the church should not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
But, like everything else— there are nuances to this that can’t be ignored. I will try to play around with some of these in the next post.
