I'm reading this book by a guy called Donald Miller. The book's called "Searching for God Knows What." In it, Mr. Miller (I don't know him, so calling him Don seems a little too informal), has a theory about why people act the way they act to each other. Actually, he has a lot of theories, but I only want to talk about that one.
The theory (simplified to save time): Imagine that all of humanity is 5 people sitting in a life boat. The boat has enough food for 4 people. One person has to go. People act petty, mean, and cruel to each other because they're afraid of being the one tossed from the boat.
It's a nice theory, as theories go. But it's a little too pat. He applied it to racism, saying that grouping minorities by race and dubbing them inferior was an easy way to cement your place in the boat. Remember, the lowest person in the boat's hierarchy gets tossed. And that makes sense, if you look at it right. But it doesn't make sense if you look at it a different way.
If you look at it Mr. Miller's way, racism is fallout from the fall of man (Adam, Eve, and the fruit that brought male pattern baldness and all other sorts of evil into this world). Prior to the fall, the boat didn't have any population problems, there was no need to develop a hierarchy to ensure your safety, and so there was no racism. We'll set aside the fact that there were only two people. Imagine the fall happened later. The point is still valid.
My problem with the theory, specifically as to how it applies to racism, is that it's too simple. Racism isn't based solely on the kill or be killed instinct. It's also based on fear of the unknown. Different races tend to have different cultures (even in the great USA "melting pot"). People who have a totally different way of looking at life tend to scare other people.
I know some people who used to live in southern Idaho who hate Mexican immigrants. They say it's because the immigrants are taking all their jobs, but I really don't think that's it at all. Frankly, most of the jobs taken by the immigrants are menial labor jobs that nobody wants anyway. I think the real issue is they dress differently and speak differently and go to different churches. All of this is scary. Not because they'll take the jobs of southern Idahoans (or anywhere else for that matter), but because... well... they're different. And it's easier to say we hate people than to admit we're afraid of them. Can you imagine two sun-weathered farmers talking to each other over a fence, saying how scared they were of the new people?
I'm pretty confident that all of racism isn't caused by the life boat principle. I'm also pretty confident that my "scared of the unknown" theory doesn't provide a universal reason either. What I'm trying to say is that people (and all the things they do, like hating each other) are complicated. Our motives are varied, and no one theory can adequately explain why we do what we do.
One final note: I like Donald Miller's books because they make me think. He's not a theologian, and he never claims to be. But he asks questions that need to be asked on occasion, especially since we normally don't like the answers. I'm also not a theologian, but I think my writing makes that obvious enough.
The theory (simplified to save time): Imagine that all of humanity is 5 people sitting in a life boat. The boat has enough food for 4 people. One person has to go. People act petty, mean, and cruel to each other because they're afraid of being the one tossed from the boat.
It's a nice theory, as theories go. But it's a little too pat. He applied it to racism, saying that grouping minorities by race and dubbing them inferior was an easy way to cement your place in the boat. Remember, the lowest person in the boat's hierarchy gets tossed. And that makes sense, if you look at it right. But it doesn't make sense if you look at it a different way.
If you look at it Mr. Miller's way, racism is fallout from the fall of man (Adam, Eve, and the fruit that brought male pattern baldness and all other sorts of evil into this world). Prior to the fall, the boat didn't have any population problems, there was no need to develop a hierarchy to ensure your safety, and so there was no racism. We'll set aside the fact that there were only two people. Imagine the fall happened later. The point is still valid.
My problem with the theory, specifically as to how it applies to racism, is that it's too simple. Racism isn't based solely on the kill or be killed instinct. It's also based on fear of the unknown. Different races tend to have different cultures (even in the great USA "melting pot"). People who have a totally different way of looking at life tend to scare other people.
I know some people who used to live in southern Idaho who hate Mexican immigrants. They say it's because the immigrants are taking all their jobs, but I really don't think that's it at all. Frankly, most of the jobs taken by the immigrants are menial labor jobs that nobody wants anyway. I think the real issue is they dress differently and speak differently and go to different churches. All of this is scary. Not because they'll take the jobs of southern Idahoans (or anywhere else for that matter), but because... well... they're different. And it's easier to say we hate people than to admit we're afraid of them. Can you imagine two sun-weathered farmers talking to each other over a fence, saying how scared they were of the new people?
I'm pretty confident that all of racism isn't caused by the life boat principle. I'm also pretty confident that my "scared of the unknown" theory doesn't provide a universal reason either. What I'm trying to say is that people (and all the things they do, like hating each other) are complicated. Our motives are varied, and no one theory can adequately explain why we do what we do.
One final note: I like Donald Miller's books because they make me think. He's not a theologian, and he never claims to be. But he asks questions that need to be asked on occasion, especially since we normally don't like the answers. I'm also not a theologian, but I think my writing makes that obvious enough.
Comments